delet... Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 patents went down because it was harder to come up with patents that didn't have prior art or weren't obvious re-implementations of prior technology. Software patents should be done away with altogether, as it's led to some serious abuse of the patent office (at least in the US). like some of the things apple have been trying to patent lately .. fkin scumlords .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cichlisuite Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 we will have completely rethink how wealth is distributed .. etcetera blar blar blar .. obvious .. + iev gota goe for sum eks nao .. ;-] soe yair get ritc .. bie land in the kuntree .. yeP .. yeah, that struck me in the eye in your previous post. so that is all what a fine mind, of those who are given to see this opportunity, can sum up? call me a pretentious hippie or whatever but i really must ask what responsibility awaits for one at this very point? i mean the responsibility to the collective consciousness. it all seems this competitive behavioral pattern sticked firmly inside of us. like, you are not making it a better place for anyone except for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freak of the week Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Man can never create something "smarter" then him, because whenever he makes something, he implements in it his own principles and ideas. And what would be the meaning of revolution in which man's own mind wouldn't be involved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 we will have completely rethink how wealth is distributed .. etcetera blar blar blar .. obvious .. + iev gota goe for sum eks nao .. ;-] soe yair get ritc .. bie land in the kuntree .. yeP .. yeah, that struck me in the eye in your previous post. so that is all what a fine mind, of those who are given to see this opportunity, can sum up? call me a pretentious hippie or whatever but i really must ask what responsibility awaits for one at this very point? i mean the responsibility to the collective consciousness. it all seems this competitive behavioral pattern sticked firmly inside of us. like, you are not making it a better place for anyone except for you. oh yes .. i am part of the self satisfying elite that will rule you forevermore with our power nanobot armies and brain influencing implants .. heh .. i guess you don't know dleetr very well .. he is a] ironic statement making .. b] sometimes a little too cynical (is this possible surely it can be chalked up as irony) but just cause it looks cool .. c] parttime survivalist somewhere in the background of his psyche (hence the get rich and buy land comments) ... d] has a general love for this planet if not the way everything on it works .. but in the main is on it's side e] respects the right of others to live the way they choose so long as it doesn't infringe on the healthy flow of his own existence or that within reason of most other creatures on this planet ... (so perhaps somewhat of an closet anarchist rather than a group think socialist) ... f] typical denizen of watmm then ^^ man wied ie goe an riet xat bS its probably only partly true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest boo Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 gorgonzola cheese Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 brie and cornichons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cichlisuite Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 i was only provoking moral questions. which maybe sounded badly conceived. i'm still learning englsh ;) i did kept in mind though, the irony hence it was taken for granted. sorry mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rambo Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 And what would be the meaning of revolution in which man's own mind wouldn't be involved? humanity won't stand still though, it will evolve. Even putting that aside, as i said in an earlier post - it's quite possible that a singularity will occur due to us enhancing our own intelligence. Also bear in mind that by the time this comes to pass, we will have been gradually merging with machines for decades. It'll be nowhere near as clear cut as it seems to be now. Either way, if a singularity is possible it is absolutely inevitable and unstoppable. It's as inevitable as fire because our nature is to get to grips with this thing we've found ourselves in (the universe). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siegecow Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 please nobody post that terribly cheesy Lawnmower man esque youtube hoax where the guy claims to be some AI singularity achievement, some people on this forum actually believed it was real and because of that i had to take a break from the forum for several weeks. i dont think anyone was going to post or even bring it up. and the fact that you left the forum for weeks because of it makes you look like a really pretentious douchebag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 i was only provoking moral questions. which maybe sounded badly conceived. i'm still learning englsh ;) i did kept in mind though, the irony hence it was taken for granted. sorry mate. hae dude it's ok .l. you can come visit my fully decked out castle by the shore anytime .. once i've had the machines terraform it .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wall Bird Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I'm not sure what country you're living in right now, but since you have a computer I'm willing to bet bananas and chickens aren't scarce. I think Blutac was mistaken in saying that there is scarcity of these things (assuming that's what he's saying) and I don't understand why there is the perception that there is. Scarcity applies to everything, it's the result of unlimited demand and limited supply. I suppose you could use it in the sense of only necessary goods (food, housing etc.), but really it encompasses everything money can buy. Wouldn't have used chickens and bananas as an example, but as it is, there is scarcity of chickens and bananas, or they would be free. Things only cost money because of scarcity. If there were chickens and bananas everywhere then there wouldn't be a market for them. In the sense I'm talking about, in a post scarcity world, you could get an unlimited amount of whatever good you want, without sacrificing on getting something else. Its just debatable as to whether humans can ever be totally satisfied. Well this kind of scarcity you mention is non-existent in most any industrialized nation. There is not a shortage of food or other items. There is in fact a surplus. The reason people do not have these things is because they can not afford to pay for them, or they have to pay for them at all. I don't think that things cost money because there is scarcity. I believe that they cost money because there is surplus as a result of our capitalist society and it's tendency to overproduce and accumulate wealth. Using food as an example, people only used to spend a few hours a day foraging for the food they needed. Once agriculture was developed and they began to harvest our food and create more than they needed. Rather than forage for it they could now produce it and began to appoint people as distributors of the food while others worked in the field producing more crops. Due to this newfound surplus of food (product) these food distributors became detached from those doing the labor, yet found themselves in charge of a means to pay for other services such as craftsmen, servants, or warriors (police, military). This surplus then became a major tool for coercion and has now spread to a massive scale around the world. There are homeless people, but they are not homeless because there are no homes. They are homeless because they cannot afford to pay for them. Take the United States - and possibly other countries. I don't know. - current housing problems and evictions. These are a result of banks making greedy mortgage offers that are very hard for people to repay (aka predatory loans) so that they can extract the maximum amount of profit from them. There is an incredible imbalance in the way that wealth is distributed in capitalist society. The people building the homes are building to meet the demands of their employers at the top and are not being paid equal to the work they do. They are, in fact, being exploited. They have to work eight hour days for, let's say, $12 an hour. Some would consider this to be a fair trade. "You work an hour at your current wage and collect based on how much you work. Enough to pay your bills and feed your family." However, this should not be the case. The workers should only have to work four hours at $24 an hour - enough to meet their cost of living. Instead, their bosses are profiting from the extra four hours of labor a day that they can squeeze out of them while paying them less. As a result you now have a situation where the workers are not profiting equally from their labor. They are being exploited for the profit of their bosses. This creates a massive imbalance in our society where a minority have huge stockpiles of resources for themselves while a majority either have nothing or have to work harder than necessary in order to meet the cost of living. It's not that there is no food to feed the hungry or homes to shelter them, it is that the distributors of these items are exploiting them and forcing them to pay for the very products which they are producing. Basically this is one of the fundamental changes that socialism calls for in society. It demands that the workers be in control of the goods they produce so that they may be evenly distributed amongst everyone. For a really good read on the matter I highly recommend 'The Meaning of Marxism' by Paul D'Amato. I've deviated a bit from the point of this thread. Let's try to reconcile the two topics with a question. Since a great deal of technological progress has been motivated by the capitalist need to outdo competitors by producing more "efficient" means of production, what effect would the switch to a socialist society, where the need for blistering technological advance is less pertinent, have on the realization of a technological singularity and would it even develop at all? I actually found out today at work that Ray Kurzweil gave a talk there yesterday. I really wish I had known. I would have asked him that very question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest blutac Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I'm not sure what country you're living in right now, but since you have a computer I'm willing to bet bananas and chickens aren't scarce. I think Blutac was mistaken in saying that there is scarcity of these things (assuming that's what he's saying) and I don't understand why there is the perception that there is. Scarcity applies to everything, it's the result of unlimited demand and limited supply. I suppose you could use it in the sense of only necessary goods (food, housing etc.), but really it encompasses everything money can buy. Its just debatable as to whether humans can ever be totally satisfied. Well this kind of scarcity you mention is non-existent in most any industrialized nation. There is not a shortage of food or other items. There is in fact a surplus. The reason people do not have these things is because they can not afford to pay for them, or they have to pay for them at all. I don't think that things cost money because there is scarcity. I believe that they cost money because there is surplus as a result of our capitalist society and it's tendency to overproduce and accumulate wealth. I've deviated a bit from the point of this thread. Let's try to reconcile the two topics with a question. Since a great deal of technological progress has been motivated by the capitalist need to outdo competitors by producing more "efficient" means of production, what effect would the switch to a socialist society, where the need for blistering technological advance is less pertinent, have on the realization of a technological singularity and would it even develop at all? I actually found out today at work that Ray Kurzweil gave a talk there yesterday. I really wish I had known. I would have asked him that very question. Right... Scarcity is a strictly definable economic concept and I think at this stage it's just a case of me not being able to describe it well enough I guess. I mean I dunno if you just phrased it badly, but it just doesn't make sense to say that things cost money because there's too much of them. I think even the most fierce socialist critic of the capitalist system would still accept the most basic laws of supply and demand. I mean I think we overproduce, but this doesn't put the price up! I don't see what Socialism has to do with this in the slightest, and I'm sure that unless we had a Luddite government in charge, computer technology will continue to grow at a fast pace. A Socialist society could have other more 'noble' reasons for pursuing technology such as furthering humanity or something. Besides, the free market is a very good indicator of what the people want, and so any democratic government would probably have to respect what the markets told us - that people are massively interested in technological advancement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 There is an incredible imbalance in the way that wealth is distributed in capitalist society. The people building the homes are building to meet the demands of their employers at the top and are not being paid equal to the work they do. They are, in fact, being exploited. They have to work eight hour days for, let's say, $12 an hour. Some would consider this to be a fair trade. "You work an hour at your current wage and collect based on how much you work. Enough to pay your bills and feed your family." However, this should not be the case. The workers should only have to work four hours at $24 an hour - enough to meet their cost of living. Instead, their bosses are profiting from the extra four hours of labor a day that they can squeeze out of them while paying them less. As a result you now have a situation where the workers are not profiting equally from their labor. They are being exploited for the profit of their bosses. i would rather think that the workers should be engaged for eight hours .. at 24 dollars per hour .. then the overall productivity increases .. more homes get built (using your example) .. worker moral increases .. further increasing productivity ... the workers use their surplus income to buy into owning their own well appointed modern homes .. and filling them with new appliances .. and so the bosses' business grows along with the workers standard of living ... + we all have to contribute our labour for the good of society in order to generate the surplus that then drives prices down .. yeah .. so the dream of only four hours per day is a little flakey .. i do like the idea of 1 day off per fortnight though .. if the economy can support it .. which it could .. we're ritch biarches ... --- well this will all been thrown into chaos with the future joy ahead of us ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rambo Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 didn't want to start a thread http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KLWnWKvmkvg&...0F0&index=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perunamuusi Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 havent watched that youtube yet rambo, but i saw an american documentary in about 1994 that said within 10 years we would have wallpaper that could be reprogrammed and furniture that would intuitively change shape to meet our relaxational needs. frankly, i am not so desperately in need of intelligent furniture. i'm sure the human race could get by just fine with extra cushions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Funktion Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 didn't want to start a thread http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KLWnWKvmkvg&...0F0&index=0 This is the sort of thing I can imagine people watching in 20 years time and laughing their asses off at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rambo Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 what we need Ludd, is several watmms. All varying shades of blue backgrounds and shit. Lots of slightly varying fontsizes and page scrolling smoothity. didn't want to start a thread http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KLWnWKvmkvg&...0F0&index=0 This is the sort of thing I can imagine people watching in 20 years time and laughing their asses off at. You've just described every video about the future my friend. What do you want from me? Fellatio? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perunamuusi Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 i entirely agree (except i would have spelled "asses" as "arses") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Funktion Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 where's my fellatio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rambo Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 *figure fours* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest blutac Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 didn't want to start a thread http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KLWnWKvmkvg&...0F0&index=0 A lot of that stuff seems pretty cool but it's all based on the idea that we'll continue to live the same way we do now, I'd think that the most profound technological change will be in areas that we haven't even thought of yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hahathhat Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 i'm waiting for home 3D printers so i can pirate my next pair of sneakers off the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zazen Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 this apparent AI that posted videos on youtube is almost definately a fake, but had interesting stuff to say Eidolon AI discusses the Singularity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zazen Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 i'm waiting for home 3D printers so i can pirate my next pair of sneakers off the internet. http://reprap.org open-source self-replicating 3d printer (that is, a 3d printer that can print (most) of its own parts) so far only does plastic, but see here for some shoes it made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zazen Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Topically, as an April fools joke Google have announced their new AI called CADIE http://www.google.com/intl/en/landing/cadie/index.html and they say it has already generated its own homepage: http://cadiesingularity.blogspot.com/ (note the url) i look forward to the imminent panda flavoured singularity edit: started a new thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.