Thread: A free System Society

interesting idea to give everyone a guaranteed standard of living, it says. do not work to get money rather get money to be able to work. fear of survival will be minimized and people can concentrade on their talents. but of course many people would be taking the money and live a lazy life. however if you have some time, take a look at this man´s idea:

Livable Income For Everyone - Gotz Werner Interview 2009 page 1

I think a free society is somewhat different then guarenteeing basic necessities.

Not having any costs associated with things like water, electricity, maybe natural gas, and a basic apartment/house is different then not having to pay for a new I-Phone or not having to pay for a palatial estate.

I'm not trying to jump to the most absurd example here, but, what i am trying to say is there's a spectrum, and people, especially within the US, aren't willing to submit to someone else's definition of what falls where on that spectrum.

Americans distrust government, even when that government is doing things the way american citizens want them to do it.
If a free system was put into place in the US we'd need a definite change in the attitudes of people towards the government.

As for barter systems, i inherently dislike those because they tend to ignore that people go to monetary systems for a reason. Having a universal and impartial medium of exchange allows people to participate in economic activities without having to conform to the subjective demands of others.
People are free to charge as much money as they want for goods and services, but a person who only has a bunch of bread, can still do business with a man who's only looking to deal in horses because money can be traded in for horses (just as a brief and somewhat non-sensical example).

Money enables more people to participate in the economy, which usually good.

Any replacement for what we have now would have to be more inclusive, not less inclusive.

Originally Posted by SOUL-DRIFTER

AI would not be good for decision making. As consult perhaps.

Power bases would have to be unilaterally abandoned. Leadership roles could still remain in place.

I have to strongly disagree on the points noted above for the following reasons:

1) AI would take the most logical path to equity if that is what it was programmed to do.
2)To only consult AI would be to hear only yet another opinion, but the ultimate choice would be down to a human, and we all know humans are corruptible in some form or another.
3)Power bases cannot be abandoned while leadership is still in place imo. The whole concept of a leader is one who can make decisions for a population/group of people, and therefore wields some form of power.

Originally Posted by Web Majick

I have to strongly disagree on the points noted above for the following reasons:

1) AI would take the most logical path to equity if that is what it was programmed to do.
2)To only consult AI would be to hear only yet another opinion, but the ultimate choice would be down to a human, and we all know humans are corruptible in some form or another.
3)Power bases cannot be abandoned while leadership is still in place imo. The whole concept of a leader is one who can make decisions for a population/group of people, and therefore wields some form of power.

Ah, but, how can we or how do we trust the programmer? Who gets to decide what the AI is programmed to think?

Originally Posted by michael59

Ah, but, how can we or how do we trust the programmer? Who gets to decide what the AI is programmed to think?

This is of course a very good question, and a question to which I do not have an absolute answer.

One would hope that when such a system/entity arrives/is born, it's creator(s) would give it a level view. However, who knows for sure.

I guess the concept of AI within the context of what I was referring to was based on the premice that it would have no 'human' emotion and would hopefully be devoid of megalomania.

I suppose this agrument could end up circular, but what I have stated above was really the intent

I think, until we discover ways to guarntee resources, this will have to wait. I mean things such as Rodenbury's replicator. We are getting there but still have to rely on shortages, weather, crop survival and animal farming/fishing etc.

It sounds wonderful and I've often wanted to live to see a Star Trek like society...I think I will have to wait a few more incarnations for that one but I'm not giving up hope.

However, I do see a distinct possibility of money going the way of the dinosaur and a credit system for the rich - a barter system for everyone else. I think this is a reality that will be here sooner than we think.

Originally Posted by Web Majick

I guess the concept of AI within the context of what I was referring to was based on the premice that it would have no 'human' emotion and would hopefully be devoid of megalomania.

And here is where we'll have to agree to disagree.
Human emotion leads humans to make poor choices, but it also leads humans to make wise choices. It's not something that should be callously thrown away.

I don't think it's possible for a human to model a true artificial intelligence without emotion. Pathos is more important to our understanding of the world then we're capable of admitting.

Originally Posted by sagewillow

I think, until we discover ways to guarntee resources, this will have to wait. I mean things such as Rodenbury's replicator. We are getting there but still have to rely on shortages, weather, crop survival and animal farming/fishing etc.

I think shortages will make things difficult, but i don't think we'll need Rodenbury-esque replicators for a free society; just better trust of government and more reliable modes of government.

Originally Posted by RhettE_Lawe

And here is where we'll have to agree to disagree.
Human emotion leads humans to make poor choices, but it also leads humans to make wise choices. It's not something that should be callously thrown away.

I don't think it's possible for a human to model a true artificial intelligence without emotion. Pathos is more important to our understanding of the world then we're capable of admitting.

Fair call, there are many amazing things that humans do out of positive emotion.

I am not suggesting to throw anything away, but my point, i guess was, human emotion tends to cloud judgement. Sure there are always many sides to the argument, however perhaps there is a benefit to a binary choice system.

Just a musing on it really. Maybe there are many ways a system can really progress, not sure we will experience it or not...suspect not, but you're right, a very balanced perspective does need to be taken with regards to emotion and AI

Originally Posted by OLP

interesting idea to give everyone a guaranteed standard of living, it says. do not work to get money rather get money to be able to work. fear of survival will be minimized and people can concentrade on their talents. but of course many people would be taking the money and live a lazy life. however if you have some time, take a look at this man´s idea:

Livable Income For Everyone - Gotz Werner Interview 2009 page 1

Laziness is driven by several factors, but natural ambition is very counter to laziness. If a world were to open up where by possibilities exist in employment and other opportunities where by concern for living expenses would never come to play, I think laziness would be far less than what you see in tha world today.

Originally Posted by Web Majick

I have to strongly disagree on the points noted above for the following reasons:

1) AI would take the most logical path to equity if that is what it was programmed to do.
2)To only consult AI would be to hear only yet another opinion, but the ultimate choice would be down to a human, and we all know humans are corruptible in some form or another.
3)Power bases cannot be abandoned while leadership is still in place imo. The whole concept of a leader is one who can make decisions for a population/group of people, and therefore wields some form of power.

I see it as like a congress. Each representative would cover an area of the world. United Nations would become United Earth sort of speak.
The best system in my opinion would be to use AI as a consult before final decisions would be made.

Originally Posted by sagewillow

I think, until we discover ways to guarntee resources, this will have to wait. I mean things such as Rodenbury's replicator. We are getting there but still have to rely on shortages, weather, crop survival and animal farming/fishing etc.

It sounds wonderful and I've often wanted to live to see a Star Trek like society...I think I will have to wait a few more incarnations for that one but I'm not giving up hope.

However, I do see a distinct possibility of money going the way of the dinosaur and a credit system for the rich - a barter system for everyone else. I think this is a reality that will be here sooner than we think.

I think that often SCI-FI is a look to what often is ahead tech wise.
I do not think a Food Dispenser or replicator is beyond possible. With time we will learn to manipulate matter and energy and moving particles to custm design material is just a matter of time.

Originally Posted by Web Majick

Fair call, there are many amazing things that humans do out of positive emotion.

I am not suggesting to throw anything away, but my point, i guess was, human emotion tends to cloud judgement. Sure there are always many sides to the argument, however perhaps there is a benefit to a binary choice system.

Just a musing on it really. Maybe there are many ways a system can really progress, not sure we will experience it or not...suspect not, but you're right, a very balanced perspective does need to be taken with regards to emotion and AI

This would be just one of the challenges.