Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

chronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 121 posts

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#91

Post by sideshowb »

emblem21 wrote: post #63

I once wrote a book in 2005 about the inevitable fusion of central banking theory, economic psychology, and "good-enough" artificial intelligence. Whole brain emulations weren't required. Instead, mass expansion of mobile devices and the consolidation of civil behavior into those devices (purchasing, voting, socialization, documentation, research, institution interactions, welfare benefits, etc) allows a sufficiently…

I once had ideas like that. Let me know how it works out. I suspect you'll find it hard to predict much at all let alone influence.

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#92

Post by riprowan »

philipkglass wrote: post #20

The book’s premise is that in about a century, it will be possible to scan human brains at "fine enough spatial and chemical resolution," and to combine that with good-enough models of signal-processing functions of brain cells, "to create a cell-by-cell dynamically executable model of the full brain in artificial hardware, a model whose signal input-output behavior is usefully close to that of the original brain." L…

Yes, biology is terrifically complex and there exists a near-universal tendency to oversimplify it.

However, the rate at which humans are improving our ability to understand terrifically complex systems is itself accelerating and 100 years is a very long time.

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#93

Post by CuriouslyC »

riprowan wrote: post #92
philipkglass wrote: post #20

The book’s premise is that in about a century, it will be possible to scan human brains at "fine enough spatial and chemical resolution," and to combine that with good-enough models of signal-processing functions of brain cells, "to create a cell-by-cell dynamically executable model of the full brain in artificial hardware, a model whose signal input-output behavior is usefully close to that of the original brain." L…

Yes, biology is terrifically complex and there exists a near-universal tendency to oversimplify it. However, the rate at which humans are improving our ability to understand terrifically complex systems is itself accelerating and 100 years is a very long time.

The initial stages of a sigmoid curve resemble exponential growth. I'm pretty sure that the exponential character we've witnessed is the result of miniaturization of the transistor and the industrialization of large third-world economies, both of which are running out of steam. If we don't get some major new breakthroughs, expect to see the other side of that sigmoid soon enough.

We may see another brief exponential curve with the development of carbon nano-computers, likely netting at least an order of magnitude additional computing performance. I have strong doubts about the feasibility of general purpose quantum computing (though it will definitely have niche uses).

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#94

Post by M0T0K0 »

emblem21 wrote: post #63

I once wrote a book in 2005 about the inevitable fusion of central banking theory, economic psychology, and "good-enough" artificial intelligence. Whole brain emulations weren't required. Instead, mass expansion of mobile devices and the consolidation of civil behavior into those devices (purchasing, voting, socialization, documentation, research, institution interactions, welfare benefits, etc) allows a sufficiently…

I would be highly interested in reading such a book. Any drafts and/or links available?

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#95

Post by SubiculumCode »

AstralStorm wrote: post #83
SubiculumCode wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I attended a primer lecture on tbe immune system. Holy hell. At least 200 different types of T cells. At least 200 other types of immune cells. Then there are all their interactions, signaling, locating, memory functions. I honestly dont know if one can ever get a handle on the complexity.

It is not complexity, but diversity. The functions those cells perform are mostly understood as are most mechanisms by which they work. There are many variants of a similar function and mechanism. That said, immunology is still quite young too, but compared to it neuroscience is not even born.

For a large part we understand how two particles can interact. Simple rules.

Put together 200 of those particles, predictions become very difficult and complex.

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#96

Post by reflexive »

Houshalter wrote: post #76
reflexive wrote: post #32

> You are beautiful, intelligent, and charismatic, as are your friends, co-workers, lovers. Aren't all of these qualities measured relative to our neighbors? I.e., each of us is a genius compared to our ape forebearers, but if everyone around you is beautiful, intelligent, and charming, then no one is. > You feel no hunger, no cold, no heat, no pain. Again, isn't discomfort relative to what one is prepared for? Under…

Those qualities are measured relative to us , present humans. He's saying the Ems will be much smarter, beautiful, and charismatic, compared to humans in 2016. >wouldn't the slightest dip or peak in subjective well-being feel like a life-altering crisis? Well that's much more debatable. I think to some degree suffering and pleasure are on an objective scale. Maybe it has to do with how much dopamine or pain nerves ar…

> I would give a lot to live in a world where there was no risk of getting some illness or accident that could cause intense pain or suffering, yet otherwise everything else was exactly the same. Wouldn't you?

Not really. I would argue that life is suffering, or at least entails suffering. Without physical suffering, you would suffer psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually - perhaps to a far greater degree. I strongly suspect that the confusion and malaise which afflicts modern man, compared to his tribal ancestors, is correlated with a reduction in physical hardship.

So no - while removing a specific source of physical suffering may sometimes be prudent, in general I would not sacrifice anything I truly value in a vain attempt to avoid suffering in general.

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#97

Post by vannevar »

duckkg5 wrote: post #12
carsongross wrote: post #11

He's not an economist, he's a futurist, and not a particularly interesting one. For an actual economist ahead of his time, I recommend Steve Keen.

Hanson is a professor of economics at GMU http://economics.gmu.edu/people/rhanson

For folks who may not be familiar with future studies. It's a genuine academic discipline, when we say that Hanson is a futurist, it's not an insult.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_studies

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#98

Post by dredmorbius »

Animats wrote: post #52
aab0 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (He's at George Mason University, which is a right-wing think tank, and has to say stuff like that to get tenure.) Hanson was an extreme libertarian long before he got tenure or joined GMU, or even before he invented prediction markets.

I know. I think I met him when Xanadu was being developed. (Xanadu was a pre-WWW technology for storing and distributing hypertext documents. Everything is pay per view in Xanadu. The Xanadu crowd were mostly fanatical libertarians. Everything is a market, with micropayments for everything.)

Does that includ Ted Nelson himself?

My interest in Xanadu has just dropped a few orders of magnitude.

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#99

Post by dredmorbius »

reflexive wrote: post #32

> You are beautiful, intelligent, and charismatic, as are your friends, co-workers, lovers. Aren't all of these qualities measured relative to our neighbors? I.e., each of us is a genius compared to our ape forebearers, but if everyone around you is beautiful, intelligent, and charming, then no one is. > You feel no hunger, no cold, no heat, no pain. Again, isn't discomfort relative to what one is prepared for? Under…

Oh, you and your pesky "wait, but value isn't absolute" observations.

https://archive.org/stream/lectureonnotiono00lloy#page/34/mo...

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#100

Post by freshhawk »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #90
freshhawk wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? I think we must have different understandings of the term, it just means that people decide what they want and then act in the way they think will get them that. Also, I'm not sure how the quoted part relates, that was my facetious description of how Homo Sapiens act, in contrast with Homo Economicus.

>I think we must have different understandings of the term, it just means that people decide what they want and then act in the way they think will get them that. Quite the opposite, actually. Homo Economicus has two things homo sapiens does not, and cannot : * A fixed-a-priori "utility function". Things it wants before it has experienced life at all, with those "things" being linearly convertible into money. * Model…

Yup, although that seems to be a very specific version of the general Homo Economicus term.

Do you think I find the idea of Homo Economicus convincing or valid? I was arguing the opposite.

Post reply on HN