So we all know why communism doesn't work, but would that sort of thing be possible in a nation purely made up of AI citizens, be they androids or whatever? I mean surely a robot wouldn't be greedy and would allow for Communism to function properly.
[QUOTE=Destroyox;52673206]I mean surely a robot wouldn't be greedy and would allow for Communism to function properly.[/QUOTE]
That's a big assumption.
People fail to realise greed is what drives technological progress. The urge to make dosh off new tech is why we have new tech. A race of AIs without that drive may stagnate. I'm also inclined to believe AIs will be (at least at first) based of organic minds, so they'll likely have organic thoughts.
But std::mutex gives some code more power than others, and which code gets that depends on its importance. I think an oligarchy would be more appropriate.
[QUOTE=download;52673219]That's a big assumption.
People fail to realise greed is what drives technological progress. The urge to make dosh off new tech is why we have new tech. A race of AIs without that drive may stagnate. I'm also inclined to believe AIs will be (at least at first) based of organic minds, so they'll likely have organic thoughts.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying they'd be some big power or anything. I think Communism by design is a pretty pacifist ideology, at least until totalitarian leaders take over and start conscription. Also a sentient AI doesn't mean they'll be a perfect imitation of a human.
[QUOTE=Destroyox;52673228]I'm not saying they'd be some big power or anything. I think Communism by design is a pretty pacifist ideology, at least until totalitarian leaders take over and start conscription. Also a sentient AI doesn't mean they'll be a perfect imitation of a human.[/QUOTE]
Except it usually requires military force to take away people's property and land.
Talking about communism or capitalism for a bunch of robots makes no sense and it's honestly pretty limiting. It's like when trying to explain animal interactions with human abstractions.
Scarcity, in our sense, doesn't exist in the same capacity with robots. An AI doesn't even necessarily have to have a need for certain kinds of self-preservation, if tragedy hits you could just have a bunch commit suicide on the spot for others to take their parts, etc..
[QUOTE=download;52673229]Except it usually requires military force to take away people's property and land.[/QUOTE]
I'm not talking about the Revolution, I mean years after where everyone is supposed to be doing whatever they want whilst the industry produces everything you need.
[editline]12th September 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52673230]Talking about communism or capitalism for a bunch of robots makes no sense and it's honestly pretty limiting. It's like when trying to explain animal interactions with human abstractions.
Scarcity, in our sense, doesn't exist in the same capacity with robots. An AI doesn't even necessarily have to have a need for certain kinds of self-preservation, if tragedy hits you could just have a bunch commit suicide on the spot for others to take their parts, etc..[/QUOTE]
Maybe I was a bit to vague with the OP but I was wondering exactly about what you posted. Would an AI society even have communism or would it just be something that looks similar to us humans?
[QUOTE=Destroyox;52673231]Maybe I was a bit to vague with the OP but I was wondering exactly about what you posted. Would an AI society even have communism or would it just be something that looks similar to us humans?[/QUOTE]
"AI" is too non-descriptive of a term to answer this. If they have the same drives and similar needs as us, then they would likely function with similar systems.
For practical purposes though from what I know AI research isn't really about creating another human. It's creating something that can teach itself and learn to enhance its ability to do specific tasks, like watson for medicine. Watson doesn't care if you turn it off.
[QUOTE=Destroyox;52673231]I'm not talking about the Revolution, I mean years after where everyone is supposed to be doing whatever they want whilst the industry produces everything you need.
[/QUOTE]
That's a not so small technicality you have there.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52673241]"AI" is too non-descriptive of a term to answer this. If they have the same drives and similar needs as us, then they would likely function with similar systems.
For practical purposes though from what I know AI research isn't really about creating another human. It's creating something that can teach itself and learn to enhance its ability to do specific tasks, like watson for medicine. Watson doesn't care if you turn it off.[/QUOTE]
The idea I was spitballing was that it was a bunch of slave helper robots who suddenly gained sentience and broke the chains. Their creators don't have to necessarily be humans.
[QUOTE=Destroyox;52673231]I'm not talking about the Revolution, I mean years after where everyone is supposed to be doing whatever they want whilst the industry produces everything you need.
[/QUOTE]
You can claim too that fascism is pretty peaceful after all of the "problems" are gone and everything is working smooth. Any system is peaceful in that case.
But any ideology has a set of principles which have to be violently enforced. A communist society would still have to stop people from recreating private property.
[QUOTE=Destroyox;52673264]The idea I was spitballing was that it was a bunch of slave helper robots who suddenly gained sentience and broke the chains. Their creators don't have to necessarily be humans.[/QUOTE]
thats still pretty vague
[QUOTE=James xX;52673220]But std::mutex gives some code more power than others, and which code gets that depends on its importance. I think an oligarchy would be more appropriate.[/QUOTE]
They're definitely going to be staunch capitalists -- it's the ultimate greedy algorithm.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52673270]You can claim too that fascism is pretty peaceful after all of the "problems" are gone and everything is working smooth. Any system is peaceful in that case.
But any ideology has a set of principles which have to be violently enforced. A communist society would still have to stop people from recreating private property.[/QUOTE]
Well Fascism kinda needs enemies in order to function, whether internal or external. Do you think if the AI was pragmatic and collectivist by nature it would be able to set up something like a communist state?
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52673270] thats still pretty vague[/QUOTE]
well I didn't want to dictate it to being my ideas only.
[QUOTE=Destroyox;52673325]Well Fascism kinda needs enemies in order to function, whether internal or external. Do you think if the AI was pragmatic and collectivist by nature it would be able to set up something like a communist state?[/QUOTE]
Not really? You can argue that just like how people might argue about communism. But on paper, in an "ideal" society, not really. The bare minimum is pretty much to be totalitarian, with a union of nation and state that comprises a focal point of society and politics.
Collectivist doesn't necessarily mean communist. Without details it's pretty much an unanswerable collection. But sure, if what an AI was taught was to behave as a communist society, that's what they'll do.
[QUOTE=download;52673219]People fail to realise greed is what drives technological progress. The urge to make dosh off new tech is why we have new tech.[/QUOTE]
if that's the case, how come technological "progress" was much slower before the 19th century? were people less greedy then?
does it mean that our modern world is exceedingly greedy and that this therefore is the cause of technological progress? whence came this greed?
how come the great majority of scientific discoveries (up until about the 20th century) were done by landed aristocrats, clergymen, and various weirdoes who (while wealthy or with patronage) who rarely seemed interested in making money anyways?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52673510]if that's the case, how come technological "progress" was much slower before the 19th century? were people less greedy then?[/quote]
Because of a lack of scientific understanding and the harsh living conditions leaving little time for innovation
[quote]does it mean that our modern world is exceedingly greedy and that this therefore is the cause of technological progress? whence came this greed?[/quote]
Our modern world has a combination of easy living conditions leading to the free time needed to embark on new technological projects and a general desire to be richer and ahve an easier life.
[quote]how come the great majority of scientific discoveries (up until about the 20th century) were done by landed aristocrats, clergymen, and various weirdoes who (while wealthy or with patronage) who rarely seemed interested in making money anyways?[/QUOTE]
Not sure where you got the idea landed aristocrats weren't interested in becoming even more wealthy.
Because this was generally before it was understood that discovering or inventing a new technology lead to wealth. It was also before the concept of intellectual property and before people have enough free time to innovate.
[QUOTE=James xX;52673220]But std::mutex gives some code more power than others, and which code gets that depends on its importance. I think an oligarchy would be more appropriate.[/QUOTE]
Yeah it's like saying that your bathroom's door gives you more power because you can lock yourself there and sit until you die from hunger.
[QUOTE=download;52673546]Because of a lack of scientific understanding and the harsh living conditions leaving little time for innovation
Our modern world has a combination of easy living conditions leading to the free time needed to embark on new technological projects and a general desire to be richer and ahve an easier life.[/quote]
then whence did the industrial revolution and all of the great innovation come from then? your argument is circular in that you say the easy living conditions which produces the innovation that in turn is required for easy living conditions. you also mentioned greed as a factor earlier, yet where does it fit in? you change the argument here so does greed not count as the factor driving technological innovation anymore?
robots are way to programmable, they'd easily become [INSERT:PAIDBRANDHERE] capitalists who exist to consume. In fact, futurama is like the best portrayal of robots ever. Not only do they take jobs away from humans and work for almost no compensation, they need to consume things such as booze, parts, and upgrades, as well as having wild ecfentricities that force them to go buy things that they really have no need for like houses, cars, boats and other luxury items, many convieniantly sold by Mom's friendly robotics company
moms friendly robotics is litterally building its market
[QUOTE=Destroyox;52673206]So we all know why communism doesn't work, but...[/QUOTE]
Did you forget where you are?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52674613]then whence did the industrial revolution and all of the great innovation come from then? your argument is circular in that you say the easy living conditions which produces the innovation that in turn is required for easy living conditions. you also mentioned greed as a factor earlier, yet where does it fit in? you change the argument here so does greed not count as the factor driving technological innovation anymore?[/QUOTE]
Oh stop being so asinine. It's not a binary thing where innovation never happened before a certain date and then "suddenly" happened after it.
I know you're not that stupid Sobotnik, so stop pretending to be.
[QUOTE=download;52676206]Oh stop being so asinine. It's not a binary thing where innovation never happened before a certain date and then "suddenly" happened after it.
I know you're not that stupid Sobotnik, so stop pretending to be.[/QUOTE]
innovation happens, but its stupid to ascribe "greed" as the driving force behind it when you don't have evidence to back this up
if anything innovation is happening at a slower rate now than it was a century or two ago. should we encourage innovation by encouraging people to be more greedy? will it actually work?
I think a robo-theocracy would be better.
Praise Mecha-Jesus.
If roboraces are ever to exist, it's sytem of choise would be dependent on their history, surroundings and origins, and is constantly subject to change in the great run of evolution.
With current computer and robotics technological path, i would see extremely centralized governance and decisionmaking as most likely option, where majority of the population would be drones with extremely limited capabilities.
Said model would be pretty fragile with low fault tolerance...
[QUOTE=download;52673219]That's a big assumption.
People fail to realise greed is what drives technological progress. The urge to make dosh off new tech is why we have new tech. A race of AIs without that drive may stagnate. I'm also inclined to believe AIs will be (at least at first) based of organic minds, so they'll likely have organic thoughts.[/QUOTE]
"Innovations" driven solely by pure greed tend to be just marketing hoaxes with very little to no actual innovation.
Every innovation has it's roots on more intellectual aspects, like curiosity and exploration.
But at the adoption phase it's driven by: survival, need, fear, will for easy life, competion and often along atleast some personal gain (to raise one's status/importance among one's peers, which still may not be counted as greed).
The survival/fear/competion aspect can be extremely powerful driver, but all those three combined, it may set the path into unbeneficiary direction, with nuclear arms race as a good example.
[QUOTE=download;52673229]Except it usually requires military force to take away people's property and land.[/QUOTE]
Ownership is pretty relative abstract concept, more like it's just supported claim, or a claim you can enforce.
So it would be extremely easy to socialize any larger unit, like factories and massive companies, as the "ownership" in that regard are just state supporting one's claim of said company.
Thus it's only required for the state to withdraw it's support of said claim, unless the workers are extremely loyal for owner, in which case force may be required.
Socializing small family companies, homes and personal belongings would be extremely harder to commit.
[QUOTE=Sableye;52674812]robots are way to programmable, they'd easily become [INSERT:PAIDBRANDHERE] capitalists who exist to consume. In fact, futurama is like the best portrayal of robots ever. Not only do they take jobs away from humans and work for almost no compensation, they need to consume things such as booze, parts, and upgrades, as well as having wild ecfentricities that force them to go buy things that they really have no need for like houses, cars, boats and other luxury items, many convieniantly sold by Mom's friendly robotics company
moms friendly robotics is litterally building its market[/QUOTE]
That would be extremely inefficient economic system, speding major chunk of production and resources for useless functionless goods for the sake of maintaining small elite's relative status in the system.
System like that would be subject to annexation from more efficient one with larger chunk of resources, besides upkeep, allocated for executing their collective strategy.
Its a fascinating idea to toy with and speculate, really. I think it boils down to the robot's "goal". For example, if it was self-replication and prolonged survival of the species, then yeah, they would all work only towards building more copies of themselves, and a sort of ant-hive communism would be the way to go. Efficient, but a sad existance.
If they had a more open choice of what "progress" would be, things may go a different path, with different decision-making nodes fighting or splitting up from others.
[QUOTE=oskutin;52679718]
That would be extremely inefficient economic system, speding major chunk of production and resources for useless functionless goods for the sake of maintaining small elite's relative status in the system.
System like that would be subject to annexation from more efficient one with larger chunk of resources, besides upkeep, allocated for executing their collective strategy.[/QUOTE]
thats kind of the point. futurama, earth, and society are effectively post scarcity but to still ensure there is growth in a system where all needs could effectively be managed, they create more consumers to keep just enough scarcity in the system by utilizing huge chunks of their industrial capacity for relatively little gains in quality of life for all those inside it.
not only are the robots built consumers, legal lobbying has given them the right to vote forming a massive block that dwarfs the living population, one that can at the push of a button swing amy election behind the right candidate.
today in our political system we have an enourmous inbalance of capital that lets the rich drown out the voices of the lesser off, in futurama they've gone one step further and created programmable voters that further rig the system of power
nothing about the system of robot consumers in futurama is portrayed as good or efficient but then if our own economics were such we wouldnt be trying to extract oil in the artic circle where theres no hope of containment in a spill, or we wouldn't be causing massive earthquakes in oklahoma next to the country's largest oil silos through fracking, our current economic system doesn't substantially weigh the risks and rewards, and doesn't plan long term either and robots that arrise out of our short sighted system probably won't be managed efficiently either
someone in the future has to build robots and that group will control how they think, how they act, influence them to the core, and would almost certainly abuse that power like our gatekeepers of the internet and social media do already
Yes, because they woulden't have an ounce of indivilism to begin with.
Infact, programming individualism would be both self-defeating and stupid.
The individual is why communism fails.
[QUOTE=Biohazard99;52684521]Yes, because they woulden't have an ounce of indivilism to begin with.
Infact, programming individualism would be both self-defeating and stupid.
The individual is why communism fails.[/QUOTE]
I would consider lack of self-organization and inabilitity/limitations of central institutions at managing the system.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
