J. Maxwell Legg wrote:
>I'm glad you asked. What I mean by hoping that there will be beneficial
timing in
>a change of methods, is another way of saying that I'm not for a complete and
>utter destruction of the capitalist system prior to installing its
replacement,
>but instead would prefer to opt for an orderly and enlightened change
over. I'm
>encouraged towards the later because of historical evidence in support of
this
>view as expressed by the ultimate holders of capitalist power themselves
wanting
>to control the entire world's wealth simply in order to get rid of monetary
>speculation and the system that that measurement of wealth entails.
However in
>the many worlds scenario these folk are playing in an enviroment beyond their
>control.
I'm not sure what you mean here. I suspect we've been reading very different books. :)
Most of the so-called "many worlds" scenarios that I'VE heard of tend to posit that all logically possible worlds exist, which on some level renders *everything* irrelevent. Is that what you're referring to?
>As to how and why AI will influence the accounting business, several comments
>need to be made. Firstly, it will become obvious that AI's data mining
efforts
>are being frustrated by the inability to access full transactional
content. Then
>it will become globally apparent that national currencies are in fact an
>unregulated but inferior form of supervised neural network (i.e., all those
>cumbersome hidden layers, the invisible hand of capitalism, etc.)
Capitalism is
>not a natural law of nature, as some like to say, and was born during
times of
>inferior data gathering concepts.
So a "superior" form of neural network (unsupervised, presumably?) would be coordinated by/with/through AI? I take it you're presuming that AI will come in the form of a neural-like network or some other complex information processor. The impression I'm getting then is that people will turn on the Internet-or-something to find out what they need to do today (possibly wiring straight into the wet ware so that they're actually thinking with the net themselves). Am I close so far?
>The literature of nonmonotonic relativity/clustering techniques shows up the
>skewed injustice of price coercion and other new connectionist models have
been
>around long enough for these comparisons to have been noticed even by the
>accounting community.
I have no clear idea at all what this sentance means. Relativity/clustering techniques? Are you referring to the way in which income equality is measured? There's a lot of different people and ways of thinking that call themselves "connectionist." What do YOU mean here?
>In economics it is the loss of transactional binding caused by the
>inherent privacy of the capitalist accounting methods that will become an
obvious
>problem to be solved.
>
>Bi-directional transactional 'binding' is the key problem to which David
Brin has
>shown the solution.
What sort of binding are you referring to here? I'm not aware of Brin approaching a problem like what you're describing.
>BTW, next to me David Brin considers himself a moderate and
>politically as this word spreads, the inevitability and/or timing of an
economic
>AI network is the same whether or not capitalism gives up its hold
willingly or
>is defeated and economic AI rises from the ashes of bloody conflict. Which
do you
>prefer?
I... ah... haven't quite made up my mind yet. ;)
-TODAY IS A GOOD DAY TO LIVE-