[alancalverd]

There's a video showing a BJJ fighter against a body builder in an MMA match. The body builder arguably has a better physique. But he was defeated in the match.

So "arguably" is wrong! Quality is fitness for purpose, and the object of ju-jitsu is to use your opponent's momentum to your advantage.  A bodybuilder is likely to have more momentum than the JJ fighter, and hasn't studied the arts of fighting. Which guy would win in a weightlifting contest?

But boxing is all about bashing someone with your fists, so a boxer with more fists is likely to beat a boxer with fewer fists in the same weight class.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So "arguably" is wrong!

Perhaps you should not use the word physique.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

IMF Report: AGI destroys all jobs within 5 to 20 years! Frontier of Automation expands beyond humans

Anton Korinek
 Fellow, Brookings Institute
 Professor, UVA
 Former, Johns Hopkins, IMF


Frontier of Automation - Task complexity of machines increases over time
 Unbounded Distribution - Human task complexity can go up indefinitely, meaning that some people will always be ahead of AGI and ASI
 Bounded Distribution - Humans have a maximum task complexity (Theory of General Relativity)


Outlines 3 Scenarios
 1. Business as Usual - All current trends continue without the frontier of automation continuing
 2. 20 Year Baseline - AGI's frontier of automation subsumes most/all human abilities within about 20 years
 3. 5 Year Aggressive - AGI's frontier of automation subsumes most/all human abilities within 5 years (more likely)
 

Wages vs Output
 1. Business as Usual - Wages and output continue to grow more or less correlated for the foreseeable future
 2. 20 Year Baseline - Productivity (output) accelerates, but wages peak by about 10 years and then collapse to zero or near zero
 3. 5 Year Aggressive - Same, but the parabolic curve is steeper (more likely IMHO)


Persistent Jobs
 - Nostalgic Jobs - Human preference for humans (such as politicians and religious positions)
 - Experience Jobs - Tour guides, sex workers, performing artists
 - Care Jobs - Child care, massage therapy, nurses

The common terminal goal for both humans and the machines is getting more crucial to be identified.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Could AGI Run the Government? I think so... let's unpack how!

00:00 - Role of Gov't & Features of Democracy
21:50 - AI Gov't Characteristics
43:23 - Predictions and Milestones

[alancalverd]

Depends on what you think the job of government to be.

In most democracies, it is to get re-elected. So any system that can read the public's mind and make promises to enough people in strategically significant electoral constituencies, can do the job.  AGI can probably do this, but it relies on human input.

In a dictatorship, it is to survive. You can do this by eliminating the opposition before they get you. AGI can probably do this, but it relies on human intelligence and effectors.

The irreducible function of government is to raise enough taxes to pay the army to defend the taxpayers. AGI can probably do this but it relies on humans to generate the taxes and be the army.

But if you want government to do anything else, you need to ascertain those other goals. AGI can probably do this but it relies on humans stating what they want done, and being prepared to compromise with the deployment of finite resources.

So the question is why bother with AGI?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So the question is why bother with AGI?

Mainly effectiveness and efficiency. AGI can be designed to be less corrupt than common politicians. They can think faster and deeper than any human.
One government will have to compete with other governments. People will have tendency to move to the more effective and efficient government aligning with their values.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Marxism vs Capitalism | Aaron Bastani and Matthew Lesh

Aaron Bastani and Matthew Lesh lock horns over two conflicting economic worldviews.

Is the success of the iPhone testament to the power of the free market or state intervention?

Marxism and Capitalism represent the two main economic worldviews in conflict. One promises a utopian vision of equity for all, the other preaches individualism and fierce competition as the way to get ahead. Join luxury-communism campaigner Aaron Bastani as he goes head-to-head with Institute of Economic Affairs? Matthew Lesh. Hosted by Myriam Fran?ois.

Both sides try to take credit from perceivedly successful governments, while distance themselves from perceivedly failed governments.

[alancalverd]

They can think faster and deeper than any human.

But for whose benefit?

One government will have to compete with other governments.

Why? Territories in civilised countries tend to collaborate rather than compete - at least until politicians get involved.

People will have tendency to move to the more effective and efficient government aligning with their values.

No evidence whatever. Government needs (a) someone to govern and (b) an external enemy to justify its existence. To guarantee (a) you have to invent (b) and prevent anyone from leaving.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

But for whose benefit?

Presumably those who built and run it. But unintended consequences may occur.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Why? Territories in civilised countries tend to collaborate rather than compete - at least until politicians get involved.

Excluding politicians in political structures is not realistic.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

No evidence whatever. Government needs (a) someone to govern and (b) an external enemy to justify its existence. To guarantee (a) you have to invent (b) and prevent anyone from leaving.

The enemy need not be other governments. It can be poverty, famine, etc.

[alancalverd]

Do you have an example of a government that was elected specifically to deal with poverty or famine, without blaming a human cause?

[alancalverd]

Excluding politicians in political structures is not realistic.

Then restructure government so it is done by directly mandated representatives of the electorate, not apologists for political parties.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Obviously, the person making that judgement. Which is why there is no universal moral standard in a resource-limited environment. 

Have you ever heard about altruism, or patriotism?

Those are examples of cases where the benefits are not received by the person who made the decision.
The universal moral standard can only be found by identifying the universal terminal goal. It means that we need to first define what goal is.

If you haven't found the common goal of selfish, altruist, and patriotic actions, let me help you.  They all try to give benefits to future conscious entities. They are future self, fellow humans and fellow citizens, respectively.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Do you have an example of a government that was elected specifically to deal with poverty or famine, without blaming a human cause?

No.
Do you have an example of a government that was elected specifically to deal with human caused problems, and explicitly refused to deal with natural problems?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Excluding politicians in political structures is not realistic.

Then restructure government so it is done by directly mandated representatives of the electorate, not apologists for political parties.

Then they will become politicians, by definition. Zelensky was a comedian, but now he's a politician, simply because he's actively participating in politics.

[alancalverd]

Even good guys like Zelensky aren't continuously mandated and liable to continuous recall.

[alancalverd]

Do you have an example of a government that was elected specifically to deal with human caused problems, and explicitly refused to deal with natural problems?

Donald Trump, and pretty well any right-wing government. The "human problem" need not be real, but as long as you can nominate someone as the enemy, you can get people to vote for you.

[alancalverd]

If you haven't found the common goal of selfish, altruist, and patriotic actions, let me help you.  They all try to give benefits to future conscious entities.

Selfishness is not directed to the future of anyone except the selfish person. Patriotism is all about venerating the past. And there is no common goal. Think football: everyone is trying to get the ball into a goal, but there are two very distinct goals. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Do you have an example of a government that was elected specifically to deal with human caused problems, and explicitly refused to deal with natural problems?

Donald Trump, and pretty well any right-wing government. The "human problem" need not be real, but as long as you can nominate someone as the enemy, you can get people to vote for you.

They don't say that they will let people suffer from natural disasters and other natural problems. They just get their facts wrong, at least according to scientific community.