I work in the area. In the EMV specification the receipt content is already saved electronically and is somewhat standardized, see, for example https://www.mastercard.us/content/dam/mccom/global/documents/transaction-processing-rules.pdf. What is missing is for the consumers and point-of-sale owners to be able to access it easily. The receipt does not identify the product sold, by the way, but enough details to verify the transaction’s occurrence.
Of course, if your chipped card is stolen and pinless tap is supported for small purchases, no transaction verification helps you to avoid fraudulent charges. And if someone has your card and knows your pin (which still can be skimmed with card skimmers), then you are likely on the hook for all transactions up until you report your card stolen.
It’s not either/or.
I no longer own a car, just use a ride share like car2go when I need to get somewhere. Also, I hate owning things. Renting what I need for when I need it and letting someone else deal with the nitty-gritty of maintenance frees my time and my mind. And I am not alone. Most corporate compute is rented. Most commercial space is rented. Most offices are rented. That most houses (in the US) are owned is an artifact of the way thing came to be. If land had no intrinsic value, and renting was a universally more economical option, then real estate ownership would drop dramatically over time.
that a single product, a single vehicle needs to do both the moving and the accommodation of the user
That’s a good point. Short trips only need moving, and longer travel needs to include accommodation, though not necessarily of a house-type kind. So, there is some room for what you propose, but probably not for the daily commute, where splitting the tug from the cabin is not necessarily economical. Still, I can see that standardized tugs might be economically viable in some niche cases.
How likely is it that your question has not already been asked, answered, indexed and on the first page of google search with a reasonable query? My guess is very unlikely. So a better question might be, and it’s something you could ask here, “I’m interested in understanding X, but not sure how to find reliable information about it, what search terms should I try?” The relevant part of stack overflow could also be a good candidate for such a question. Even at their unfriendliest, they might close your question as a duplicate or off-topic, but still provide a link to the similar questions asked.
Note that cognition comes with no goals attached. Emotions is where the drive to do anything comes from. You allude to it in “contemplation of a possible choice or outcome”. My suspicion is that having a component not available to accurate introspection is essential to functioning. An agent (well, an algorithm) that can completely model itself (or, rather, model its identical copy, to mitigate the usual decision theory paradoxes), may end up in a state where there is no intrinsic meaning to anything, a nirvana of sorts, and no reason to act.
First, really like your post! I’ve done online emotional support for some years, and I could clearly see how people end up in these self-blame and self-punishment loops with little to no improvement. Someone called it “shoulding oneself in the foot.” The common denominator is people trying to argue with the past, and to change the past, or to punish themselves (or others) for the past transgressions, whether “real” or not. What gets lost is trying to affect the present with the goal to improve the potential future. Arguably, self-blame is an easy and tempting way out, as it lets one avoid acting in the present, and just keep the self-punishment going. It also saps the energy out of you, creating a vicious circle hard to break out of. If you try to point out the loop, and ask if they are interesting in working on improving the future, they (we) tend to find/invent/create a lot of reasons why self-judgment, self-blame and self-punishment is the only way to go.
Note that for a simulation to be useful, it has to be as faithful as possible, so SimDave would not be given any clues that he is simulated.
There are many many ways something bad can happen. It is natural to focus on something you find especially scary and that your mind insists is a real possibility. Most of the time, it is you privileging a hypothesis through motivated emotional cognition. When this thought pattern goes into overdrive, one can end up with a real mental illness, not an imagined one, an anxiety disorder based on a specific if unfounded fear. Consider examining your motivations, emotions and thought patterns and figure out why you single out this specific scenario over all others.
If PhotoFeeler or similar apps drastically improve your chances, why wouldn’t dating apps offer to improve your picture? Surely they are interested in more interactions between users? Snapchat automatic filters show that it is not hard or resource-intensive to touch up one’s picture to make it look much better.
So, has this attempt failed? From the comment thread it looks like the OP has made an honest attempt and read up and probably learned a fair bit, but I did not see anything like “aha, this is where we disagree” and, to quote the link in the OP
If B, then A. Furthermore, if ¬B, then ¬A. You’ve both agreed that the states of B are crucial for the states of A, and in this way your continuing “agreement to disagree” isn’t just “well, you take your truth and I’ll take mine,” but rather “okay, well, let’s see what the evidence shows.”
Economically it would be better if humans were sort of like salmon and died after a predetermined event, without suffering through physical and cognitive decline while draining the lion share of societal resources. Some of those potential events could be: age 60, birth of a great grandchild, completing a pilgrimage, writing an autobiography… Sadly, we are stuck with the evolutionary leftovers like waiting to die of disease and old age.
I suspect the real underlying issue is that of free will: all decision theories assume we can make different decisions in EXACT SAME circumstances, whereas from what we understand about the physical world, there is no such thing, and the only non-dualist proposal on the table is that of Scott Aaronson’s freebits. I have written a related post last year. We certainly do have a very realistic illusion of free will, to the degree where any argument to the contrary tends to be rejected, ignored, strawmanned or misinterpreted. If you read through the philosophical writings on compatibilism, people keep talking past each other all the time, never getting to the crux of their disagreement. Not that it (or anything else) matters in the universe where there is no freedom of choice, anyway.
The issue of so-called logical counterfactuals has been discussed here and on the alignment forum quite a few times, including a bunch of posts by Chris_Leong, and at least one by yours truly. Consider browsing through them before embarking on original research:
This situation, if real, seems self-correcting. If you are sure you have a superior technology, and can show you do by monetizing it (otherwise, how is it superior?), then you will gain a lot of attention and change a lot of minds pretty quick.
Maybe it is worth starting with a core definition of a lie that most people would agree with, something like “an utterance that is consciously considered by the person uttering it to misrepresent reality as they know it at that moment, with the intention to force the recipient to adjust their map of reality to be less accurate”. Well, that’s unwieldy. Maybe “an attempt to deceive through conscious misrepresentation of one’s models”? Still not great.
I still intermittently run into people who claim that there’s no such thing as reality or truth;
This sounds… strawmanny. “Reality and truth are not always the most useful concepts and it pays to think in other ways at times” would be a somewhat more charitable representation of non-realist ideas.
If I understood correctly, your objection to Three Worlds Collide is (mostly?) descriptive rather than prescriptive: you think the story is unrealistic, rather than dispute some normative position that you believe it defends.
I am not a moral realist, so I cannot dispute someone else’s morals, even if I don’t relate to them, as long as they leave me alone. So, yes, descriptive, and yes, I find the story a great read, but that particular element, moral expansionism, does not match the implied cohesiveness of the multi-world human species.
Do you believe real world humans are “slow to act against the morals it finds abhorrent”?
how do you explain all (often extremely violent) conflicts over religion and political ideology over the course of human history?
Generally, economic or some other interests in disguise. Like distracting the populous from the internal issues. You can read up on the reasons behind the Crusades, the Holocaust, etc. You can also notice that when the morals lead the way, extreme religious zealotry leads to internal instability, like the fractures inside Christianity and Islam. So, my model that you call “factually wrong” seems to fit the observations rather well, though I’m sure not perfectly.
Whatever explanation you provide to this survival, what prevents it from explaining the continued survival of the human species until the imaginary future in the story?
My point is that humans are behaviorally both much more and much less tolerant of the morals they find deviant than they profess. In the story I would have expected humans to express extreme indignation over babyeaters’ way of life, but do nothing about it beyond condemnation.
It’s frustrating where an honest exchange fails to achieve any noticeable convergence… Might try once more and if not, well, Aumann does not apply here, anyhow.
My main point: “to survive, a species has to be slow to act against the morals it finds abhorrent”. I am not sure if this is the disagreement, maybe you think that it’s not a valid implication (and by implication I mean the converse, “intolerant ⇒ stunted”).
I had a pair programming experience at my first job back in the late 80s, before it was a thing, and my coworker and I clicked well, so it was fun while it lasted. Never had a chance to do it again, but miss it a lot. Wish I could work at a place where this is practiced.
I still don’t understand, is your claim descriptive or prescriptive?
Neither… Or maybe descriptive? I am simply stating the implication, not prescribing what to do.
I don’t understand what you’re saying here at all.
Yes, we do have plenty of laws, but no one goes out of their way to find and hunt down the violators. If anything, the more horrific something is, the more we try to pretend it does not exist. You can argue and point at the law enforcement, whose job it is, but it doesn’t change the simple fact that you can sleep soundly at night ignoring what is going on somewhere not far from you, let alone in the babyeaters’ world.
“Universal we!right” is a contradiction in terms.
We may have not agreed on the meaning. I meant “human universal” not some species-independent morality.
in a given debate about ethics there might be hope that the participants can come to a consensus
I find it too optimistic a statement for a large “we”. The best one can hope for is that logical people can agree with an implication like “given this set of values, this is the course of action someone holding these values ought to take to stay consistent”, without necessarily agreeing with the set of values themselves. In that sense, again, it’s describes self-consistent behaviors without privileging a specific one.
In general, it feels like this comment thread has failed to get to the crux of the disagreement, and I am not sure if anything can be done about it, at least without using a more interactive medium.
Re “tenability”, today’s SMBC captures it well: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/multiplanetary
If interpreted in the logical sense, I don’t think your argument makes sense: it seems like trying to derive an “ought” from an “is”.
Hmm, in my reply to OP I expressed what the moral of the story is for me, and in my reply to you I tried to justify it by appealing to the expected stability of the species as a whole. The “ought”, if any, is purely utilitarian: to survive, a species has to be slow to act against the morals it finds abhorrent.
Also, the actual distance between those diverging morals matters, and baby eating surely seems like an extreme example.
Uh. If you live in a city, there is a 99% chance that there is little girl within a mile from you being raped and tortured by her father/older brother daily for their own pleasure, yet no effort is made to find and save her. I don’t find the babyeaters’ morals all that divergent from human, at least the babyeaters had a justification for their actions based on the need for the whole species to survive.
I don’t claim claim that leaving the Baby-eaters alone is necessarily we!wrong, but it is not obvious to me that it is we!right
My point is that there is no universal we!right and we!wrong in the first place, yet the story was constructed on this premise, which led to the whole species being hoisted on its own petard.
it is supposed to be a “weird” culture by modern standards), much less an alien culture like the Super-Happies
Oh. It never struck me as weird, let alone alien. The babyeaters are basically Spartans and the super-happies are hedonists.