tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post7689272326958834958..comments2024-03-28T06:22:23.961-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Your Cell Phone becomes a tricorder!David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-55731668420399499732014-01-19T22:02:54.555-08:002014-01-19T22:02:54.555-08:00onwardonwardDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-70106073638732028832014-01-18T12:53:35.507-08:002014-01-18T12:53:35.507-08:00In a long-ago posting here on Dr Brin's blog, ...In a long-ago posting here on Dr Brin's blog, someone else (I don't recall who) and myself posited an adaptation of Asimov's laws of robotics into what should be instituted as the Three Laws of Corporatics. The way it would work is that national and state laws would be ammended such that all corporate charters would be presumed subject to these three laws. They would be de-facto part of any corporate mission statement, and the corporation would be legally liable for damages, fines, or dissolution for violations of the Three Laws. To wit:<br /><b><br />First Law: A corporation may not harm a human being/human community/life-sustaining environment or by inaction allow a human being/community/life-sustaining environment to come to harm .<br /><br />Second Law: A corpoation must act to fulfil the mission for which it was incorporated to the extent that such action does not violate the First Law.<br /><br />Third Law: A corporation must maximize its profits to the extent that such action does not violate the First or Second Laws.<br /></b><br />The order of hierarchy of those laws is every bit as important as the laws themselves.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-92079097442691350602014-01-18T12:42:04.640-08:002014-01-18T12:42:04.640-08:00@locum,
AIs "coming to life" in fiction...@locum,<br /><br />AIs "coming to life" in fiction is more common. I'm asking for a depiction of a <b>corporation</b> really becoming a person a la "Citizens United", and really extrapolating the consequences of that.<br /><br />I realize that this may be more fantasy than sci-fi, because I'm not dwelling on the mechanisms by which a corporation <b>could</b> come to life as a self-aware being with volition, conscience, and some ability to mainipulate the real world. I'm starting with the premise that it does happen, and going on from there. In my defense, Kafka didn't have to explain <b>how</b> Gregor turned into a bug either--the story was all about what happened after that metamorphosis.<br /><br />But I do like your "Only way to win is not to play" conclusion. That's the kind of thing a living corporation might conceivably come to without the story being a cheat.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-29767895204288607812014-01-18T12:18:23.417-08:002014-01-18T12:18:23.417-08:00Done & done. Brunner did it in 'Jagged Orb...Done & done. Brunner did it in 'Jagged Orbit'; Lasker & Parkes did it in the 1983 film 'War Games'; and in both stories the AIs came to the same conclusion: The only way to win the game (maximizing profits) is not to play. locumranchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-49766713064355803522014-01-18T11:57:49.773-08:002014-01-18T11:57:49.773-08:00locumranch's surprsingly-non-evil twin:
:)
...locumranch's surprsingly-non-evil twin:<br /><br />:)<br /><br /><i><br />As the initials 'LLC' may tell you, corporations owe much of their historical rise to prominence to limited liability status, a preferential condition counter-balance by a constitutional lack of corporate rights. Then, in 'Citizens United', the US Supreme Court ruled that corporations were (effectively) 'people', being entitled to the same rights & legal protections thereof, excepting that corporations are still granted limited liability status, meaning (effectively) that they are above the law. <br /></i><br /><br />Not only do they have limited liability, but they are defined as being able to follow only one motivation--maximization of profit. The complexities of human society which balances individual desire with other characteristics such as conscience, justice, good citizenship, empathy, concern, love...all are alien to the corporation. In fact, by strict definition, those things are <b>denied</b> to the corporate character.<br /><br />Thus, the proposition that those soulless machines/monsters/constructs have equal rights and privileges to human beings under the law is more than unfair, it is absurd. One might as well claim that the Fukishima reactor has as much right to irradiate Japan as the Japanese have to contain the damage. Or that a flu epidemic has as much right to life, liberty, and its pursuit of happiness as its potential victims do.<br /><br />And now, you've got "Christian" corporations asserting <b>their</b> religous rights not to participate in paying for contraception? My immeidate reaction was, "Oh, so <b>now</b> corpratations are allowed to have a conscience? Not to prevent them from harming people or the environment--in those cases they're all about maximizing profit. But in order to circumvent regulation...suddently there's such thing as a corporate "conscience?"<br /><br />Which reminds me...I still think there could be a good sci-fi story written around the idea of a corporation becoming self-aware and learning what it means to be "alive" and "a person". I even envision the thing <b>not</b> being evil, but wrestling with true questions of conscience and such that a real living being would.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-90512307409017657672014-01-18T11:20:18.937-08:002014-01-18T11:20:18.937-08:00What locum said. We're just discussing the d...What locum said. We're just discussing the details of cheating on the SC.Alex Tolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01556422553154817988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-31867214607089279072014-01-18T11:17:36.989-08:002014-01-18T11:17:36.989-08:00@LarryHart - everything is a risk. You put your...@LarryHart - everything is a risk. You put your money in a Carribean tax haven and there is a revolution, wiping out its tax haven status and possibly all records. You try living in Switzerland and they change the banking laws, and even extradition. Even western democracies might nationalize your assets away from you, e.g. Britain. Like investing, you balance your risk and reward.<br /><br />So far the US cops seem to be siding with the 1%. But that could conceivably change once perceptions of how they get paid changes.<br /><br />I don't think you are missing anything important. In the end, it comes down to money and power relationships. When the power of the 99% exceeds that of the 1%, there will be change. To some extent that drives the motivation for increased inequality even against the long term interests of the 1%. The inequality gets worse because you need more money to maintain power against the 99%. But as you do this, the 99% get more angry and motivated to restore equality. So you need even more money to oppose this and the cycle continues...until it breaks, either by compromise or revolution.<br /><br />The thing to remember is that the US experience of revolution, conflict and the establishment of a republic is a rare event. Most revolutions do not end this way. My guess is that the wealthy are in denial about what would happen if there was a real uprising and the police and military either couldn't contain it, or "changed sides". Alex Tolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01556422553154817988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-29274318392754943892014-01-18T11:16:20.383-08:002014-01-18T11:16:20.383-08:00What Alex & Larry are discussing is the Social...What Alex & Larry are discussing is the Social Compact -- the tacit agreement that holds society together -- and, as corporate events in West Virginia demonstrate, the US social compact appears irreparably broken.<br /><br />As the initials 'LLC' may tell you, corporations owe much of their historical rise to prominence to limited liability status, a preferential condition counter-balance by a constitutional lack of corporate rights. Then, in 'Citizens United', the US Supreme Court ruled that corporations were (effectively) 'people', being entitled to the same rights & legal protections thereof, excepting that corporations are still granted limited liability status, meaning (effectively) that they are above the law. <br /><br />And, by being 'above the law', companies like Freedom Chemical can thumb their nose at state & federal regulation, despoil the environment, poison the watershed, file for bankruptcy-protected reorganization, reincarnate as a 'different' new & improved corporation and maintain control over all fiduciary assets while divesting themselves of all liability for prior action, meaning that the average US citizen has become a corporate 'serf', just as F.A. Hayek predicted.<br /><br />Welcome to District 12; the company owns you; and 'May the odds be ever in your favour'.<br /><br /><br />Best.locumranchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-6321040684901523622014-01-18T10:21:21.517-08:002014-01-18T10:21:21.517-08:00...and to continue, I'm positing a situation i......and to continue, I'm positing a situation in which the usual corrupt politicians and police realize that they are part of the 99% with nothing to gain from perpetuating the system at their neighbors' expense. That the only loyalty the emigrant 1% would be able to generate from them is by bribery or threat.<br /><br />So I suppose the question is, what would they be able to bribe/threaten <b>with</b> in absentia in such a situation?<br /><br />A secondary question being, what am I missing in all this?LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-13012857233790766022014-01-18T10:18:29.739-08:002014-01-18T10:18:29.739-08:00@Alex Tolley:
All you say makes perfect sense in ...@Alex Tolley:<br /><br />All you say makes perfect sense in the context of a business-as-usual economic/political system in which the wealthy can exercise influence by providing useful value to enough of the population that those people will keep the system working.<br /><br />I'm talking about a possible future in which the 99% or even 99.9% have come to the realization that there's nothing in the game for them and go revoutionary. It has been suggested that a 1789-French style revolution would not work because this time the wealthy would simply flee to gated communities (perhaps on mountaintops or islands) out of reach of the pitchforks, tumbrils, and guillotines.<br /><br />It is in <b>that</b> context that I pose the question: What if instead of trying to kill the 1% and take their stuff, the 99% simply decided to not recognize the ownership rights of the emigrant 1% and rebuilt the economy without them.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-36415701544592339212014-01-18T09:49:18.714-08:002014-01-18T09:49:18.714-08:00@LarryHart impoverish the rest of the country by ...@LarryHart <i> impoverish the rest of the country by being taken away</i><br /><br />So one issue is can absentee control be maintained over an asset. This requires laws to remain favorable to your control, even in your absence. An example might be police protection of an asset you control that has monopoly status and cannot be circumvented.<br /><br />One way to do this is keep the remaining population in fear so that they support your asset, even as it strips away their wealth. Organized religion has been quite successful with that. I've been reading that the chemical leak in V. Virginia happened because local monitoring agencies ignored their duties. This was because jobs are so scarce that the population will act against their economic and health interests to preserve jobs at any cost.<br /><br />So one strategy is therefore to leave the asset in place and use it to impoverish the population. This works very well when the profits are removed from the economies the asset operates in.<br /><br />Removal of assets can obviously impoverish am economy. Imagine if all roads were private, especially bridges. You could extract rents until the bridge fell into disrepair. Then rather than repair it, just leave it to collapse. This would impoverish the economy by creating transport problems. It would take years for another bridge to replace it, either out of taxes, or for another business to build it and extract rents. <br /><br />In both cases, paid politicians keep the <i>status quo</i> so that assets cannot be expropriated by the absentee owners.<br /><br />BTW, did you see that the Freedom Company that owns the tanks that spilled the chemicals in V. Virginia no only filed for Chapter 11, they used some sleazy deal to put themselves in front of the creditors. You can bet the tax payers will be on the hook for any remediation. Leaving taxpayers the remediation costs is a classic approach of natural resource extraction companies. To me that all comes under "impoverishment".<br /><br /><br />Alex Tolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01556422553154817988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-69076010098758399942014-01-18T08:35:26.030-08:002014-01-18T08:35:26.030-08:00@Alex Tolley,
I have spent much time thinking abo...@Alex Tolley,<br /><br />I have spent much time thinking about this sort of thing in an amateur fashion. I also have no formal training in economics. So caveat emptor. I'm trying to engage in discussion of what is and isn't plausible rather than dictating any sort of final answer.<br /><br />With that in mind, what I'm getting at is the question of what exactly is it that the fleeing wealthy can take with them that would:<br /><br />1) be of useful value to them in exile in Switzerland or whatever<br />2) impoverish the rest of the country by being taken away<br /><br />And of the two, I'm much more concerned with point #2. If they can live in comfort in exile by spending electronic representations of US money, the so be it, as long as the US isn't left poorer for the absence of those electronic representations of money.<br /><br />Seems to me that an absentee rentier continuing to control the property only works if local courts and police back them up. Which is where I was going with the suggestion that a 21st century revolution may look like the 99% simply refusing to play that game any more.<br /><br />If it came to that, what exactly would the absentee rentiers still hold to enforce their will while simultaneously remaining personally out of reach of the tumbrils?LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-45975145596589605022014-01-18T07:28:39.063-08:002014-01-18T07:28:39.063-08:00@LarryHart - As you say, the wealthy cannot sell a...@LarryHart - As you say, the wealthy cannot sell assets if there is no one to buy them. The same applies to the baby boomers who will try to sell their homes over the next decade.<br /><br />There are options to avoid this:<br />1. Take out loans against the asset in lieu of a sale. Default may be an option for the unscrupulous.<br />2. Have the assets bought by their companies and therefore handing any losses to the shareholders.<br />3. Become an absentee rentier (if that works, then it should be a salable asset)<br />4. Never own a fixed asset, just rent, lease or use it as a corporate expense.<br /><br />Alex Tolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01556422553154817988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-60657292608241824262014-01-17T21:17:49.851-08:002014-01-17T21:17:49.851-08:00A very interesting read and a great post alltogeth...A very interesting read and a great post alltogether. thanks for sharing this information<br /><br /><a href="http://redstickstrategy.com/" rel="nofollow">website design baton rouge</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04978903018530928349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-3252106772722235862014-01-17T17:46:29.078-08:002014-01-17T17:46:29.078-08:00Thanks for helping to publicize the Tories' wa...Thanks for helping to publicize the Tories' war on science here in Canada, David. <br />The more publicity they get, and the more that it's broadcast, the better a chance we have of getting them out of office. Larshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07915440101940467640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-87867750204007037932014-01-17T17:35:58.465-08:002014-01-17T17:35:58.465-08:00Tacitus2:
I at least am fairly safe from smart ph...Tacitus2:<br /><i><br />I at least am fairly safe from smart phone snooping and distractions. When my 6 year old flip phone died a few months ago I had a backup. No camera, no features, no smarts. I have never sent a text in my life and plan to keep it that way.<br /><br />Old enough to be retro..<br /></i><br /><br />I also have never used FaceBook or YouTube for much the same reason that I've never smoked marijuana--the idea that it's better not to let "them" have anything on me.<br /><br />But I see that self-censorship as cowardice on my part, not a trait to be proud of.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-43749189287589182202014-01-17T17:33:05.608-08:002014-01-17T17:33:05.608-08:00Alex Tolley:
@LarryHart - I was thinking more tha...Alex Tolley:<br /><i><br />@LarryHart - I was thinking more that the wealthy would live in other, more friendly, countries, taking their wealth with them. Money facilitates wealth transfer - just sell your physical assets in the US and buy new ones at your destination. In extremis, they live in Elysium.<br /></i><br /><br />Of course, that's the general expectation of how it plays out.<br /><br />But if they sell their stuff, they're leaving the "stuff" behind for the rest of us to use. They're not impoverishing us by taking it with them.<br /><br />What do they take with them? Probably not even paper money, but electronic representations of money. Does that impoverish the country being left behind? Only if we play along with the game.<br /><br />Even more fundamentally, if the 0.1% own most of the wealth, and they're going to leave, who are they going to sell their stuff <b>to</b>? I mean, who is going to buy it? It's the diametric opposite of that scene in Mel Brooks's "History of the World Part 1" where the poor beggars in 1789 Paris are trying to beg from each other. In this case, everyone with wealth is trying to convert it all to cash at the same time, and the only possessors of sufficient quanties of cash are themselves.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-26053220135509420162014-01-17T17:17:50.100-08:002014-01-17T17:17:50.100-08:00Tony: "Why are acacias herding hungry elephan...Tony: "Why are acacias herding hungry elephants upwind?"<br /><br />Now this is why I have the best blogmunity on the planet.<br /><br />hrmmmmmmm.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-89711187274605512932014-01-17T15:30:56.349-08:002014-01-17T15:30:56.349-08:00Who knows what's being communicated in the roo...<i>Who knows what's being communicated in the root system, though?</i><br /><br />There is evidence that plants communicate information about insect infestation via their roots to their neighbors. Their neighbors can then up their flavenoid production in anticipation of an attack.<br /><br />But as I said earlier, this is a "lookup" code, not a sequential signaling system. Alex Tolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01556422553154817988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-39936570566358486102014-01-17T14:34:41.583-08:002014-01-17T14:34:41.583-08:00Terserans expressed themselves in wafts but, yes, ...Terserans expressed themselves in wafts but, yes, I forgot about the 'Pandorian' tree vines ("You are not on Garth any more!")<br /><br />Actually, that reminds me that a lot of vegetation does this: acacia trees emit "Help, I'm being eaten" scents, that cause other trees to hastily up the content of nasty tastes in their leaves. Elephants counter by moving upwind as they munch.<br /><br />Who knows what's being communicated in the root system, though? Why are acacias herding hungry elephants upwind?Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-88432403689071519982014-01-17T14:16:29.765-08:002014-01-17T14:16:29.765-08:00FYI, the $100 smart phone already exists. The Nok...FYI, the $100 smart phone already exists. The Nokia Lumia 520 is a fantastic smart phone running current generation, upgradable moblie OS. I ditched my $600 high end model and am using it almost exclusively now. It's easy to find one in the $50-70 range.<br /><br />Sub $250 tablets are a thing too. The Nexus 7 by all accounts (Don't have one myself) is a fantastic device. Pretty sure it runs about $230. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-6268557115383055652014-01-17T12:26:23.283-08:002014-01-17T12:26:23.283-08:00Jonathan S… interesting theory!
Tony7 I have used...Jonathan S… interesting theory!<br /><br />Tony7 I have used Pheromone based communications in bunches of my novels. Also a tree-to-tree-to-tree signaling system in The Uplift War.<br /><br />Tacitus… make an exception for the camera. Everyone should have one all the time and the phone is a great place for it<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-25734191814417622552014-01-17T09:36:32.675-08:002014-01-17T09:36:32.675-08:00I've heard the autism=overstimulated before, a...I've heard the autism=overstimulated before, and what I haven't seen is the fact there's evidence for that in ADD.<br /><br />Howso? Because we've basically demonstrated the problem in ADD is not that sufferers are over-stimulated, as used to be assumed(1), it's that they're _under_-stimulated, so they stimulate *themselves*. (Either by distracting themselves with thought, or, in the case of ADHD, actually creating movement.) This is, of course, why stimulates work to help.<br /><br />And we know that ADD and autism are somehow linked. People with ADD often have autism-like symptoms, and recently genes have been discovered that appear to make it more likely to get either autism or ADD.<br /><br />So, basically, it's looking more and more like it's one disorder. Most people have a wide range of levels of stimulation they can deal with. They wouldn't be happy in an sensor deprivation tank or a war(2), but they're find in the normal range.<br /><br />But *something* can go wrong and remove one of the end of the range. Remove the 'under' end, and you get ADD, with people always stimulating themselves and unable to deal with calm, or remove the 'over' end, and you get autism, with people unable to cope with normal levels of action and withdrawing.<br /><br />1) The real joke is that we've, perhaps, been treating *both* those problems exactly backwards. Kids with ADD get 'distractions' removed, when in reality they'd probably be better off if the radio was on when they did their homework. Meanwhile, kids with autism get constant stimulation to try to get them to interact. (Although it's hard to see what actually *would* help there.)<br /><br />2) Incidentally, I've often wondered about PTSD...is that what you get when you get extremely stimulated for very short periods of time as an adult?DavidTCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1059804132240870492014-01-17T09:15:44.155-08:002014-01-17T09:15:44.155-08:00Regards infectious disease I concur. Having a run ...Regards infectious disease I concur. Having a run on systemic sepsis of late, numerous cases of whom two (both of whom went on to die, alas) were both on broad spectrum antibiotics before they hit the ER. But of course after the holidays is always a time for crowded obit pages. Season of the Raven I call it.<br /><br />I at least am fairly safe from smart phone snooping and distractions. When my 6 year old flip phone died a few months ago I had a backup. No camera, no features, no smarts. I have never sent a text in my life and plan to keep it that way.<br /><br />Old enough to be retro..<br /><br />TacitusTacitushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17007086196578740689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-67012909475291078732014-01-17T07:46:18.613-08:002014-01-17T07:46:18.613-08:00The major flaw I see in the Sally-Anne test, the o...The major flaw I see in the Sally-Anne test, the one long used to suppose a lack of empathy in autistics, is one of assumption.<br /><br />It is assumed that the autistic child will choose the real hiding spot for the marble because he can't put himself in the place of the doll that "left the room". I propose an alternate explanation, however, one that fits my own early experience as an Aspie: People know things about other people that seem inexplicable to us as children. (Since that whole "body language" thing comes so easily to you neurotypicals, no one thinks to explain it to a four-year-old - instead, they assume he just doesn't "feel" things properly.) Since, for instance, Mommy can tell when your brother Bill is lying even when you don't have a clue, why should it seem unreasonable to suppose that these dolls are employing the same strange, bizarre sense for what others are thinking?Jonathan S.noreply@blogger.com