Social Credit

[chickenstrip]

[Easy-X]

[Bhud]

Collapse entails a reduction of complexity, in complex systems. A side-effect of this is less fragility. This is why social credits are a part of societal collapse, and why they're so desperately needed, and important, to give way to a better networked system.

Let's say Marcus Rashford goes on CNN, BBC, Sky, Twitter, Facebook, print/web media and states the government should provide UBI.

Ultimately, his attention level is linked to his sporting achievements. This is a natural phenomenon - attention aggregates to him. But quantifying the value of his attention across several networks as above is the technological problem we can easily fix.

A social credits system must be a universal multiplier.

Joe Bloggs starts talking about a Fourth Reich on, say, BCF. His social credit score multiplier reduces his tokenised attention (which is currently, say, 10 points) not by subtraction but multiplication by 0.1. By an AI system run by Google/Apple/Microsoft. He's now got 1 point. It's worth about £0.20 to an advertiser who may want to sell him, say, WW2 memorabilia. He may have trouble getting work, or a passport, etc. But it's not actually stopping him chatting nonsense.

Marcus Rashford starts talking about a need for, say, UBI. He has 1 million attention tokens. The social credit multiplier global AI system detects his activity and adjusts it by 1.5. He now has 1.5 million attention tokens. Each of these are traded and bought by people who want to stick his face on a soft drink or trainers. He gets very rich. He will not stray.

[Nobby the Bastard]

You don't need a system specifically for that. That's how the world works anyway.
____________________
trevor saxe-coburg-gotha:"Remember this simple rule - scooters are for men who like to feel the breeze on their huge, flapping cunt lips."
Sprint ST 1050

[Bhud]

I'm just thinking that the existence of a social credits system isn't only immediately useful but it greatly expedites an exciting new future.

All of our systems have failed. We've been shown how these comfortable out-of-date systems have brought us to where we are at present, and how easily the puppet strings can be bought and sold, and pulled by people we can do absolutely nothing about.

Universal AI. Let's see what the networked world neocortex can do, if we were to replace this pseudo-democracy bullshit with something that can actually work out problems rather than feathering its own nest.

[Nobby the Bastard]

And you want to put it I the hands of a computer? Who controls the computer.? How can you trust that an ai hasn't been seeded to favour particular viewpoints?
____________________
trevor saxe-coburg-gotha:"Remember this simple rule - scooters are for men who like to feel the breeze on their huge, flapping cunt lips."
Sprint ST 1050

[chickenstrip]

[Bhud]

[Nobby the Bastard]

So how many hissy fits about taking the knee?
____________________
trevor saxe-coburg-gotha:"Remember this simple rule - scooters are for men who like to feel the breeze on their huge, flapping cunt lips."
Sprint ST 1050

[Nobby the Bastard]

It won't be self taught. It doesn't matter who builds it.

Ian m. Banks said in his books that all AIs take on the flavour of the society that created it.

An AI cannot be self taught. It will be fed information from the society that created it to learn from.
Where else does the information come from?
____________________
trevor saxe-coburg-gotha:"Remember this simple rule - scooters are for men who like to feel the breeze on their huge, flapping cunt lips."
Sprint ST 1050

[chickenstrip]

[Nobby the Bastard]

To show solidarity to a cause? Historically we expect our personalities to have a social conscious.

Except, of course, when we disagree with that cause.
____________________
trevor saxe-coburg-gotha:"Remember this simple rule - scooters are for men who like to feel the breeze on their huge, flapping cunt lips."
Sprint ST 1050

[Bhud]

[chickenstrip]

[Nobby the Bastard]

It will be taught by the information that it's given.

The data it's given will come from the people who create it.

If an AI was created in nazi Germany it would be a nazi. If it was created in North Korea it would worship fat Kim.


An AI won't have any sense of morality unless the data.i5s exposed to points it in that way and as we.all know living in a moralistic society doesn't prevent killers.
____________________
trevor saxe-coburg-gotha:"Remember this simple rule - scooters are for men who like to feel the breeze on their huge, flapping cunt lips."
Sprint ST 1050

[Bhud]

With the advent of machine learning and neural networks, I don't quite believe that that's strictly the case. However, even if you're right, it's a story that simply must be played out. Like the Manhattan Project - tech will take this course and the results, good or bad, are a sort of evolutionary process of their own, the only real risks being extreme outlier events (against which I'm sure there will be effective safeguards).

In its more developed stage, it may decide to take decisions that would result in what we might consider amoral outcomes. However, for all we know, those outcomes are the best of all possible outcomes. Therefore if it's fed complete information, and given leeway to run experiments (on us), it will fine-tune itself to whatever it's destined to be. At the end of the day, this world and the universe do not exist for the sole benefit of us, or even of life as we know it. This thing must be helped to take its proper course.

[Easy-X]

[Nobby the Bastard]

So what if you give fl access to the sum of human knowledge to your fledgling iAI?


And it decides that humanity is a aguebon the planet?

Nobody in their right minds would take that chance.
____________________
trevor saxe-coburg-gotha:"Remember this simple rule - scooters are for men who like to feel the breeze on their huge, flapping cunt lips."
Sprint ST 1050

[Ste]

[Bhud]

We have to face the reality that we may actually be a plague upon the earth and the cosmos. We may all have a point of view on the matter, and I suspect that most people will disagree. They will say, human beings are 1) a net good in their results; 2) inherently valuable in some way. However, how are we to know for sure, unless we make something independent of us that can evaluate us and destroy us if necessary?

From my point of view, the epitome of the fruits of human civilisation have been to recreate Eyes Wide Shut. Epstein's island, etc. That's what our parliaments, judiciaries, social structures, economic systems have given us. That was the best we could do. The end result - the fruits of all we could do - was THAT. Our systems offer a few elite individuals free reign and they do stuff like that, when left alone with all the power and wealth at their disposal. They organise structures in which they can witness themselves in the eyes of another conscious being. They want to see fear, and feel powerful. It's that crude. "Look at me and behold my awesome power and majesty - I am the most powerful man you have met to date in your life". This finds expression in disgusting old perverts who want young virgins. This isn't anything new, by any means. Human nature cannot establish working systems because the human being always needs a victim - a witness - or it's nothing, in the darkness. So the system can't ever be perfect and work properly, if designed by men.

Suppose you had a box that knew everything, which you could consult to solve any problem. In a sense, we like to pretend everything could be on Google. However, Google could have access to more information than it has. Now give Google the ability to make and enforce decisions based on all the data we collect, from everywhere. CCTV cameras, private and public. Secret information, policy information, corporate information, medical information, private/personal life information, etc. Does it make good decisions or bad? Well, I would say we've just made Leibniz's god. Omniscient and omnipotent, it can only act in a good way, because the desire to see itself reflected isn't there. It already knows.

[Nobby the Bastard]

[Bhud]

If it has complete knowledge, then we must let it act in a manner it deems fit, without constraint.

It's like Covid-19. Some people had knowledge of viruses. They studied this new one. They discovered how it was transmitted, and what its symptoms were. Then, statisticians modelled the likely consequences of various policy choices, e.g. lockdowns, masks, etc. They fed this information to policy makers, who enforced it on people who did not understand.

Many mistakes were made in this process. A computer would not have made them.

How do we know that we ourselves are not a virus? Is there a net positive benefit to the average human birth? Occasionally you get an Einstein but the majority of the time you get people who might be like chickenstrip. (joke)

[Nobby the Bastard]

[Bhud]

[duhawkz]

Haven't AI's that have been exposed to the internet ended up going full donk

https://futurism.com/delphi-ai-ethics-racist
____________________
"The guy is a worthless cunt and I honestly believe I would be a slightly happier person if he died." - Chris-Red