Not sure this is a good use of the MVT but I came to the view long ago that MTV is a really bad model for general voting and elections but is a good model for party formation and platform—and I suppose, therefore, primary voting. I think as you start collapsing the complex issue space into a common dimension as it typically illustrated one should expect to see a multi-modal distribution. The modal centers then become the party platform locus.
I think that over simplifies what I was saying but accept I did not elaborate either.
The consuming all available resources is not a economically sensible outcome (unless one is defining available resources very narrowly) so saying the AI is not a economically informed AI. That doesn’t seem to be too difficult to address.
If the AI is making output that humans value and follows some simple economic rules then that gross over production and exhausting all available resources is not very likely at all. At some point more is in the basket than wanted so production costs exceed output value and the AI should settle into a steady state type mode.
Now if the AI doesn’t care at all about humans and doesn’t act in anything that resembles what we would understand as normal economic behavior you might get that all resources consumed. But I’m not sure it is correct to think an AI would just not be some type of economic agent given so many of the equilibrating forces in economics seem to have parallel processes in other areas.
Does anyone have a pointer to some argument where the AI does consume all resources and points to why the economics of the environment are not holding? Or, a bit differently, why the economics are so different making the outcome rational?
I think it might be a bit dangerous to use the metaphor/terminology of mechanism when talking about the processes that align humans within a society. That is a very complex and complicated environment that I find very poorly described by the term “mechanisms”.
When considering how humans align and how that might inform for the AI alignment what stands out the most for me is that alignment is a learning process and probably needs to start very early in the AI’s development—don’t start training the AI on maximizing things but on learning what it means to be aligned with humans. I’m guessing this has been considered—and probably a bit difficult to implement. It is probably also worth noting that we also have a whole legal system that also serves to reinforce cultural norms along with reactions from other one interacts with.
While commenting on something I really shouldn’t be, if the issue is about the runaway paper clip AI that consumes all resources making paper clips then I don’t really see that as a big problem. It is a design failure but the solution, seems to be, is to not give any AI a single focus for maximization. Make them more like a human consumer who has a near inexhaustible set of things it uses to maximize (and I don’t think they are as closely linked as standard econ describes even if equilibrium condition still holds, the per monetary unit of marginal utilities are equalized). That type of structure also insures that those maximize on one axis results are not realistic. I think the risk here is similar to that of addiction for humans.
I wonder if the investment view will fully hold. Seems to assume that “labor” incomes will be eliminated by AI robotics but one might expect that the AI(s) will also have, or create their own, ability to replicate. In other words the capital markets could just as easily be at risk from various paths TAI could take.
Thanks for the feedback—particularly your view on where things are in the timeline.
Thanks, you’ve given me some things to think about.
The intersection is described as dangerous but I don’t see any mention of accidents. Is this actually a dangerous intersection or more an inconvenient/offensive to some people’s sense of acceptable?
Since you seem to have a bit of a following, and I would guess more than a few are in your area, posting the experience on various social media, BBB and local review sites is probably good. Might get something to go viral and that will provide the negative press the rather sketchy actor needs—and will help others avoid.
I don’t think you can really recoup any payments to the first company as you agreed to that beforehand. Consider it a “learning experience”. However, given the price and the apparent attempt to deceive/grossly over charge you might be able to report it to you local government. I would check with both your local representative and whatever local consumer protection department might exist. In Fairfax County VA, where I live, a commission exists. Once of the powers/duties it has”
May hold public hearings on and publish its findings on issues of widespread public interest which deal with illegal, fraudulent, deceptive, or dangerous consumer practices. May adopt, promulgate, amend, and rescind rules and regulations, subject to the approval of the Board of Supervisors, concerning such issues.
I think you are correct, any business practice that amounts to a situation of double billing should be a huge warning flag. I always start the conversation with “I’m calling to get a ball park estimate for <my problem>.” Most repair shops with then tell you what they will charge to come look but seldom be able to give a really good number. I will try to talk with at least 3 difference businesses. If one seems both reasonable and the conversation goes well (created some sense of trustworthiness) I will make schedule the initial check. If not, back to the drawing board as they say.
I will also use such a service call to assess the service personnel and the company. If they are good I will often inquire into things like service contracts (for something like HVAC systems) to perform periodic maintenance work and will generally also enjoy some type of purchase discount pricing for work done and replacement of systems when needed. (My situation may be a bit different though as I’m in a single family house with a central HVAC system not wall/window units.)
In some ways it seems the question “So how could you stop this happening?” is quite a bit like the jailer in the Prisoner’s Dilemma story was answering. The problem was getting the prisoner’s not to cooperate in their silence but rat each other out. What type of payoff matrix would be needed to induce political representatives to act in the public interests rather than party interests? Clearly you don’t get that from the parties so it would need to be operationalized within some Constitutional and Congressional structure.
Perhaps one thing that might also help in thinking through potential solutions would be trying to segregate legislation into a few different types of buckets to see if certain types of legislation (or the underlying class of problem the legislation is attempting to address) are more prone to generating such behavior.
I had the thought occur to me (some time ago) that we are in the 21st Century and in many ways it still seems a lot like the 18th, 19th and 20th Centuries. Government is still very much an actor within society and still very much being a pain in the ass as often as it s being helpful. Could it be possible that in the 21st Century government could evolve into some general infrastructure that efficiently allows the interested people solve their own problems? Clearly that could not be all but the idea that government functioning as a tool that largely eliminated the organizational and informational cost asymmetries could allow a good number of things government now does be “delegated” to the people. I suspect certain classes of problems we currently see government’s creating legislation (and playing party politics with) could fall into that type of bucket.
If we also learned that those types of problems are actually where we see the highest incidence of the undesired political behavior....
I might think “framing” is what it is about. I don’t really see that as an different than what occurs when academics are writing papers where perhaps other schools of thought have a different take and are coming to different conclusions.
Okay, that is fair, my use of “rented” was sloppy. The land user is paying the economic rent the location commands back to the community/society. That is not the same as your typical lease arrangement.
But clearly no ownership right that allows an owner to decline some offer, not matter how high, to transfer that control of the item exists with land (nature) under a Georgist system. So no one is actually buying, or owning, land in that system as understood under the current private ownership currently in place.
The real difference in the Georist land taxes is the alternative concept of land ownership and process for setting tax rates, not merely the magnitude of the taxes that are levied.
I (largely) agree with the statement made that “buying” land is cheaper and “owning” more expensive. However, it does gloss over the fundamental changes related to property rights in land (nature) at the core of the system.
I”m not sure about that as I think a lot of the land value is driven entirely by network effects related to the density of economic and social activity.
Why wouldn’t Georgism drive more “NIMBY” to keep the rents down—and so possible drive up various externalities (e.g., factories locating in low rent areas resulting in high travel for both workers and products?
[Edited to put the scare quotes in—I don’t think Georgism would be a strong driver or NIMBY activism by locals but could create the incentives to produce a pattern of activity that looks very similar. ]
That is a bit of a misleading statement. Land is never bought under a Georgist system, it is only rented. The rent is the taxes paid to the governing authority.
Certainly no answer on the terminology question but I am trying to understand how these “private beliefs” might be any different than a person’s opinion? Perhaps the distinction is in just what degree one thinks there is considered observations and thought but I’m not sure that is a sure basis. Most opinions are not just considered random thoughts and views lacking any reasonable basis by the person holding the opinion.
Perhaps the characterization of premises/evidence could be understood as more anecdotal, non-random sample observations so potentially skewed to a special case/false conclusion?
The other point you make about “understandable without a bunch of careful explanations” points to 1) a level of complexity that makes shared knowledge problematic and 2) a belief that is related to a highly specialized area so perhaps not fully able to fit into any type of public, widely shared data/knowledge set.
Thanks for the post and I think it’s probably a great example of very general processes/dynamics. While not something I could write I think it would be fascinating if someone were to identify X number of devices/concepts and then trace that history from first known instance to current. Or maybe even some initial innovation/invention/discover and how that evolved into a number of paths.
The wheel might be a good example of that wheel → gears, wheel’s reduction in friction to any number of easier moving parts or other movement/motion such a very low friction roller tables/ways in factories, slides on drawers....
Just the other day one of the people in the group I was hanging out with over the weekend (bunch of racers at the track) made a comment about how the old “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it” can be very problematic. I think that applies to pretty much all things and most ideas/knowledge. We need to always go back and reevaluate current state in the now newer context of what is known—we may well find it’s time to reinvent what seems to be working just fine. I suspect that is something that gets forced on us when some type of “disruption” event occurs that is either finding itself limited by current structures or the current X about to be case aside as the path forward takes a more radical turn but sufficient interests want to keep X relevant for as much longer as they can.
Side question—did any of the sources you looked at mention if different wood was used for making the wheel-hub (looks like that is one piece but maybe not—if not any differences there) and the axle the wheel was rotating on? Or even anything about lubrication attempts?
Something like this https://www.metalsdepot.com/aluminum-products/aluminum-channel-6063? 1/16″ is perhaps overkill for this type of application—but then perhaps having it provide some structural strength is a good thing.
The other option would be make a drawing and then go talk with a local HVAC company to see if they make their own custom duct work or if they have a supplier they will introduce you to.
Perhaps your goal was to state things provocatively, or perhaps you were just being terse. If so then maybe this doesn’t apply.
I struggle finding a way to agree with your suggestion if I take your claims seriously. If outcomes actually do depend on luck—“depend” being a rather strong concept here I think—then why spend any but the more trivial amount of effort on process? Process cannot solve bad luck or really influence good luck (if it can then I don’t think we’re talking about luck at all).
Sounds like it just means if we’re having problems with dredges it might not really be an issue of building them. I think maybe the question is what is preventing a business, person or government agency from buying such ships? I might get with governmental actors approvals might be highly biased towards US built. Then given the problem with size (and likely willingness to pay economically viable prices—we do a REALLY BAD job with this type of maintenance activity due to wanting to spend the money on more visible or “profitable” activities with more immediate returns) having local ship builders to make the required ships is under provided.
You can also just get one of the little “trickle” chargers that will keep the battery charged and healthy without stressing it. Some will have a small plug attachment you can then make the maintenance process a bit cleaner looking (and a bit more certain in terms of always have good connections).