Flinter

Karma: 10

Flinter Jan 17, 2017, 2:07 AM
2 points
in reply to: Elo’s comment on: Lost purposes—Doing what’s easy or what’s important
K I skimmed that and I think I can speak to us in a re-solving manner. System 1 yes, that is easy to see relates. But system 2, does this involve projection of the future? I don’t think it is necessary, even for complex tasks. I think projection gets in the way of efficiency of the action.

This speaks to goals as well. So I might not prove goals are wrong and bad, but I can suggest that there can be friction such as “Oh no, I’m not achieving my goals” and this friction is “bad”.

Now of course if you are thinking of achievement X (which is a clear projection of a future event btw), then not setting a goal and missing X might seem “bad”.

But how is it, one has claimed they want X, but then they do something else, and somehow still state they wanted X?

I am suggesting wanting X is a fallacy. There is no substance to it, and so setting goals for these arbitrary ends (x )creates a friction with what actually happens.

But I am also suggesting that people that are free from such friction live incredibly efficient existences.

Flinter Jan 17, 2017, 1:57 AM
0 points
in reply to: Elo’s comment on: Welcome to Less Wrong! (11th thread, January 2017) (Thread B)

John Nash won a nobel prize for game theory. No one ignored him. He’s a great mathematician and economist, they made a movie about his life. The whole community mourned when he died in a car accident. No one is ignoring him.

He spoke for 20 years and wrote for that time on the subject Ideal Money that he had been developing his whole life. He toured country to country proposing his idea. Have you head of it, because you just stated you aren’t ignoring him and neither is the community. Do you understand his argument/proposal and what are you doing about the significance of it?

edit: (also btw what he was given prizes for was just components and sub-solutions contained within his bigger proposal Ideal Money)

Battles over definitions are interesting, and I would encourage you to become familiar with 37 ways that words can be wrong before challenging definitions.

There is nothing to battle over. I will be using all commonly accepted definitions. But I am particularly interested in whether or not we share the same definition for “ideal”, which is not a challenge or battle.

This is a very bold claim, and would require very confident evidence to back it up. I am certainly not saying no, but the burden of proof is on you to explain why it matters so greatly to be world changing. Please feel free to put together a thesis which describes that.

I have such a thesis’ but why would you ask for mine and not attend to Nash’s in order to judge the truth of it? That is irrational.

Again a bold claim, no one is censoring any body of work and if we did it would still be on Wikipedia, or free to talk about it elsewhere (as with the general avoidance of politics)

Yes my thread on it was removed and the mod explained they favor Hayek over Nash which is a clear indication of such bias. If they thought Nash’s proposal had merit and was rational then we would be having dialogue in the main forum like it belongs or AT LEAST in the discussion section.

Thanks, cheers!

Flinter Jan 17, 2017, 1:47 AM
0 points
in reply to: Elo’s comment on: Welcome to Less Wrong! (11th thread, January 2017) (Thread B)
Perfect thanks. I teach Ju Jitsu (which people ascribe to an integral part of mma) with no tapouts: https://steemit.com/mma/@jokerpravis/extending-bjj-with-no-tap-outs-the-end-of-conflict-and-competition

It is similar to what you linked, that its not that I won and Tiff conceited defeat, but there that is a risk of exhaustion or injury or some certain discomfort they wish to avoid.

I think though they weren’t at all speaking to me or my argument or my situation and they tired themselves out and also were to scared to actually address the topic of Nash’s Ideal Money.

This happens in Ju Jitus too even with “no tap outs” when the person is not conserving energy properly (and therefore not utilizing it efficiently).

Flinter Jan 17, 2017, 1:43 AM
0 points
in reply to: Elo’s comment on: Lost purposes—Doing what’s easy or what’s important
Nope you spoke perfect, and a great introduction too (cheers). But there is an argument that goals are wholly irrational. So how I would make a counterpoint to you would be to suggest that you don’t have to think and plan to catch a baseball that someone unexpectedly but lightly tossed to you.

So there is still function without such pre planning, and I am suggesting that type of function I describe is rational and pre planning (aka goals) is not, because it presupposes we can control our own fate (by psychologically projecting a future) which is unfounded.

Flinter Jan 17, 2017, 1:39 AM
0 points
in reply to: gjm’s comment on: A Proposal for a Simpler Solution To All These Difficult Observations and Problems

If, in fact, no objective metric for value exists, then there is something false about it

I doubt it is accepted logic to suggest a premise is intrinsically false.

.>If, less dramatically, your preferred candidate for an objective metric doesn’t exist (or, perhaps better, exists but doesn’t have the properties required of such a metric) and we have no good way of telling whether some other objective metric exists, then there’s something unsatisfactory about it even if not quite “false” (though in that case, indeed, it might be reasonable to say “let’s suppose there is, and see what follows”).

Yes this. I will make it satisfactory, in a jiffy.

Ah, now that’s a different claim altogether. Our most objective versus actually objective. Unfortunately, the latter is what we need.

No we need both. They are both useful, and I present both, in the context of what is useful (and therefore wanted).

The first part, kinda but only kinda. The second, not so much. Markets can deviate from ideality in ways other than not being “free”. For instance, they can have transaction costs. Not only because of taxation, bid-offer spreads, and the like, but also (and I think unavoidably) because doing things takes effort. They can have granularity problems. (If I have a bunch of books, there is no mechanism by which I can sell half of one of them.) They can simply not exist. Hence, “only kinda”. And I see no reason whatever to expect markets to move inexorably towards perfect freedom, perfect liquidity, zero transaction costs, infinitely fine granularity, etc., etc., etc. Hence “not so much”.

Yes all these things I mean to say, as friction and inefficiency, would suggest it is not free, and you speak to all Szabo’s articles and Nash’s works which I am familiar with. But I also say this in a manner such “provided we continue to evolve rationally” or “provided technology continues to evolve”. I don’t need to prove we WILL evolve rationally and our tech will not take a step back. I don’t need to prove that to show in this thought experiment what the end game is.

I don’t understand your last paragraph at all. “The market values it at a constant in relation with this theoretical notion”—what theoretical notion? what does it mean to “value it at a constant”? It sounds as if you are saying that I may be wrong about how much I care how much my wife loves me, if “the market” disagrees; that sounds pretty ridiculous but I can’t tell how ridiculous until I understand how the market is supposedly valuing it, which at present I don’t.

You aren’t expected to understand how we get to the conclusion, just that there is a basis for value, a unit of it, that everyone accepts. It doesn’t matter if a person disagrees, they still have to use it because the general society has deemed it “that thing”. And “that thing” that we all generally accept is actually called money. I am not saying anything that isn’t completely accepted by society.

Go to a store and try to pay with something other than money. Go try to pay your taxes in a random good. They aren’t accepted. Its silly to argue you could do this.

Flinter Jan 17, 2017, 1:31 AM
0 points
in reply to: gjm’s comment on: A Proposal for a Simpler Solution To All These Difficult Observations and Problems
Yes. And why do we ignore him?

Flinter Jan 17, 2017, 1:30 AM
0 points
in reply to: gjm’s comment on: A Proposal for a Simpler Solution To All These Difficult Observations and Problems
I don’t think that its founded in economics or any money theory to suggest that it is something that we don’t collectively agree on. It also goes against market theory and the efficient market hypothesis to suggest that the price of a good is not an equilibrium related to the wants of the market is it not?

″ (1) while there’s a sense in which that measures how much “the market” values the good at that time, there’s no reason why that has to match up with how any individual feels about it”

Yup you have perfectly highlighted the useful point and also (the end of the quote) shown the perspective that you could continue to argue for no reason against.

“What I said is that my values are not reducible to money”

I can’t find it. It was about your wifes love. I think we could simply cut out things not reducible to money from the dialogue, but I also suspect that you would put a value on your wife’s love.

But if its in relation to USD that doesn’t make sense because its not stable over time. But you could do it in relation to a stable value metric, for example, would you pay for a movie if she expressed her love to you for it.

Nope. I mean that what you’re saying about money seems to require extending the principle from one agent to all agents.

I’m not sure what the problem here is, but you aren’t speaking to any of my argument. A metric for value is super useful for humans, and solves the problem of how to keep AI on the correct track. Why aren’t we speaking to Nash’s proposal for such a metric?

You are fighting a strawman by arguing versus me.

And I still think its bs that the mod buried Nash’s works and any dialogue on it. And that we aren’t attending to it in this dialogue speaks to that.

Flinter Jan 17, 2017, 1:14 AM
0 points
in reply to: gjm’s comment on: A Proposal for a Simpler Solution To All These Difficult Observations and Problems
Yes Nash will get the medals for Ideal Money, this is what I am suggesting.

I am not proposing something “false” as a premise. I am saying, assume an objective metric for value exists (and then lets tend to the ramifications/implications). There is nothing false about that....

What I am saying about money, that you want to suggest is false, is that it is our most objective valuation metric. There is no more objective device for measuring value, in this world.

The rest you are suggesting is a way of saying we don’t have free markets now, but if we continue to improve we will asymptotically approach it at the limits. Then you might agree at the limits our money will be stable in the valuation sense and COULD be such a metric (but its value isn’t stable at present time!)

In regard to your wifes love the market value’s it at a constant in relation to this theoretical notion, that your subjective valuation disagrees with the ultimate objective metric (remember its a premise that doesn’t necessarily exist) doesn’t break the standard.

Flinter Jan 17, 2017, 1:08 AM
0 points
in reply to: gjm’s comment on: A Proposal for a Simpler Solution To All These Difficult Observations and Problems
Nash speaks to the crisis of 2008 and explains how it is the lack of an uncorruptable standard basis for value that stops us from achieving such a useful market. You can’t target optimal spending for optimal caring though, I just want to clear on that.

Flinter Jan 17, 2017, 12:50 AM
0 points
in reply to: gjm’s comment on: A Proposal for a Simpler Solution To All These Difficult Observations and Problems
No you haven’t interpreted what I said correctly (and its a normal mistake) so you haven’t spoken to it, but you still might take issue. I am more suggesting that by definition we all agree on money. Money is the thing we most agree on, the nature of it is that it takes the place of complex barter and optimizes trade, and it does so as the introduction of a universally accepted transfereable utility. If it doesn’t do this it would serve no purpose and cease to be money.

That you don’t value it is probably less true than it is irrational, and speaks to the lack of quality of the money we are offered more than anything (which is something I haven’t shown to be true yet).

“And at the risk of sounding like a cultist, let me point you at “Money: the unit of caring”, suggest that the bit about “within the interior of a [single] agent” is really important, and ask whether you are sure you have good grounds for making the further extension you appear to be making.”

I think you mean that I have extended the principle of caring through money to AI and you feel that article objects (or perhaps I don’t know what you refer to). It is perfectly inline and reasonable to suggest that AI will be a part of us and that money will evolve to bridge the two “entities” to share values and move forward in an (super) rational manner (one money will allow us to function as a single entity).

Flinter Jan 17, 2017, 12:34 AM
0 points
in reply to: gjm’s comment on: A Proposal for a Simpler Solution To All These Difficult Observations and Problems
“This seems to me like a category error. The things produced by natural evolution are not values. (Though natural evolution produces things—e.g., us—that produce values.)”

I am saying, in a newtonian vs Quantum science money naturally evolves as a thing that the collective group wants, and I am suggesting this phenomenon will spread to and drive AI. This is both natural and a rational conclusion and something favorable the re-solves many paradoxes and difficult problems.

But money is not the correct word, it is an objective metric for value that is the key. Because money can also be a poor standard for objective measurement.

Flinter Jan 17, 2017, 12:28 AM
0 points
in reply to: gjm’s comment on: A Proposal for a Simpler Solution To All These Difficult Observations and Problems
Well I am speaking of Hayek Nash and Szabo (and smith) and I don’t think medals makes for a strong argument (especially vs the stated fellows.

“Oh. Then your premise is flatly wrong, since people in fact don’t all agree about value.”

By what definition and application of the word premise, is it “wrong”? I am suggesting we take the premise as given, and I would like to speak of the implications. Calling it wrong is silly.

“(In any case, “objective” doesn’t imply everyone agrees. Whether life on earth has been around for more than a million years is a matter of objective fact, but people manage to disagree about it.)”

The nature of money is such that “everyone agrees” that is how it becomes money and it is therefore and thus “objective”. But I am not yet speaking to that, I am speaking to the premise which is a value metric that everyone DOES agree on.

Flinter Jan 17, 2017, 12:23 AM
0 points
in reply to: TiffanyAching’s comment on: Welcome to Less Wrong! (11th thread, January 2017) (Thread B)
You don’t understand what I am saying. But others reading our dialogue will. I’ll say it like this: Nash doesn’t need me to jump through YOUR hoops to make his argument correct and valueable for this community and the world. You said you were going to read his 8 page essay, you could have read it by now...why are you still attacking my character, the delivery, and the messenger?

Flinter Jan 17, 2017, 12:19 AM
0 points
in reply to: moridinamael’s comment on: A Proposal for a Simpler Solution To All These Difficult Observations and Problems
Yup so I can get banned. I didn’t expect this place to be like this.

Flinter Jan 17, 2017, 12:04 AM
0 points
in reply to: moridinamael’s comment on: A Proposal for a Simpler Solution To All These Difficult Observations and Problems
It was removed by a mod.

Flinter Jan 17, 2017, 12:03 AM
0 points
in reply to: TiffanyAching’s comment on: Welcome to Less Wrong! (11th thread, January 2017) (Thread B)
Yes exactly. And I am also asking you why you never considered 20 years of his most defining work before this? He proposes that the introduction of an international e-currency with a stable supply will incite our current fiat systems to asymptotically approach a limit he calls “ideal money”.

But I don’t want to introduce it like this. I want us to understand the other two threads I created that someone else linked to, because it is an incredibly difficult subject and read and I can save us the time.

Flinter Jan 17, 2017, 12:00 AM
0 points
in reply to: Filipe’s comment on: A Proposal for a Simpler Solution To All These Difficult Observations and Problems
“In our society, this common currency of expected utilons is called “money”. It is the measure of how much society cares about something.”

“This is a brutal yet obvious point, which many are motivated to deny.”

“With this audience, I hope, I can simply state it and move on.”

Yes but only to an extent. If we start to spend the heck out of our money to incite a care bear care-a-thon, we would only be destroying what we have worked for. Rather, it is other causes that allow spending to either be a measure or not of caring.

So I don’t like the way the essay ends.

Furthermore, it is more to the point to say it is reasonable that we all care about money and so will AI. That is the nature of money, it is intrinsic to it.

Flinter Jan 16, 2017, 11:47 PM
0 points
in reply to: moridinamael’s comment on: A Proposal for a Simpler Solution To All These Difficult Observations and Problems
This is all the respect Nash’s Ideal money gets on this forum? He spent 20 years on the proposal. I think that is shameful and disrespectful.

Anyways, no. I am saying that “we” all converge on money. We all agree on it, that is the nature of it. And it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that so would (intelligent (and super bad)) AI be able to. And (so) it would because that is the obviously rational thing to do (I mean to show that Nash’s argument explains why this is).

Flinter Jan 16, 2017, 11:26 PM
0 points
in reply to: moridinamael’s comment on: A Proposal for a Simpler Solution To All These Difficult Observations and Problems
It converges on money. And it IS knowledgeable. Nash’s defined it and gave it to us before he left. Why won’t you open the dialogue on the subject?
What links here?
- gjm's comment on A Proposal for a Simpler Solution To All These Difficult Observations and Problems by Flinter (Jan 17, 2017, 6:11 PM; 0 points)

Flinter Jan 16, 2017, 10:51 PM
0 points
in reply to: gbear605’s comment on: Welcome to Less Wrong! (11th thread, January 2017) (Thread B)
Thank you! You cannot argue it is an appeal to authority as a way of refuting it. I say its probably significant and correct because its Nash, and it is quite easy to traverse an 8 page paper as a community and decide whether I am making a substantial claim.

I am presenting a very difficult topic that not even Nash could get you to understand. It makes little sense for you to suggest that I am doing it wrong.

“Also, this might be just me, but I still have no clear picture on what the topic actually is after skimming the beginning of Nash’s lecture.”

Exactly. Please allow me to explain 20 years of lectures, in a very short time, so we can all understand the significance...especially before I am banned by this mod.