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

Technorealism (1998)

technorealism.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 51 posts

Re: Technorealism (1998)

#31

Post by GhettoComputers »

dredmorbius wrote: post #15
xg15 wrote: post #13

> 6. Information wants to be protected. It's true that cyberspace and other recent developments are challenging our copyright laws and frameworks for protecting intellectual property. The answer, though, is not to scrap existing statutes and principles. Instead, we must update old laws and interpretations so that information receives roughly the same protection it did in the context of old media. The goal is the same…

There's a potential middle ground. - The present effective gate to the Internet is online service providers and mobile telephony / data providers. - A combination of UBI (sufficient to support authors, musicians, and other creators) and reputation / merit-based compensation (for works of more substantial effort, notably jouranlism, investigation, and research) should be able to support creatives. Note that this is mo…

I am anti UBI (but not welfare) for these reasons: Can you calculate the cost of UBI, and how much it would take to live? What is it, and where does the money come from? The math never works, and we assume the government won’t steal it like they stole SS.

Do you expect the money to go to people that need it? I see administration costs taking most of it for themselves, the US department of education is spent mostly on administrative matters that do not go to teachers students or anything that helps education.

The two solutions are about accountability and prevent bloat. One idea is a cryptocurrency or other ledger that prevents skimming.

My favored solution is a negative income tax, making below a certain amount entitled you to recieve cash when you file taxes. It doesn’t go through the cycle of government workers slicing the pie before expecting them to give it back but with more money, it keeps it in your pockets, rewards tax filing and will help the neediest people, creative or not, and also anyone who is down on their luck.

Re: Technorealism (1998)

#32

Post by dredmorbius »

ctdonath wrote: post #26
canadaduane wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've largely come to the same conclusion. We want to support the creation of something that the physical universe treats as abundant and nearly infinite (information), but our economics are not currently aligned with possibilities that lead to win/win solutions for artists/consumers and the poor who often don't factor in to economic equations.

Nonsense. Never has everyone has more access, producing & receiving, whatever information they want - and nigh unto free. The issue isn’t cost, it’s inundation.

The mix is an issue.

Much of what's freely-available is low-quality at best, propaganda (or worse) in the worst case.

Curation itself has value, and yet is constrained. This is in fact a major theme of Andrew Shapiro's The Control Revolution, and one of the tired arguments still encountered frequently today which was entirely anticipated over two decades ago.

Re: Technorealism (1998)

#33

Post by GhettoComputers »

cma wrote: post #25
xg15 wrote: post #13

> 6. Information wants to be protected. It's true that cyberspace and other recent developments are challenging our copyright laws and frameworks for protecting intellectual property. The answer, though, is not to scrap existing statutes and principles. Instead, we must update old laws and interpretations so that information receives roughly the same protection it did in the context of old media. The goal is the same…

A third option with both funding and no artficial scarcity: https://cepr.net/report/the-artistic-freedom-voucher-interne... Everyone gets money to spend as patrons for people contributing to the commons.

What is artificial scarcity? I don’t disagree with funding arts, in fact I think that STEAM would be a superior system to STEM, but we don’t even fund STEM research enough today, even though many of the best scientists had artistic abilities: not full inference.

Re: Technorealism (1998)

#34

Post by GhettoComputers »

lawrenceyan wrote: post #14

I agree with everything except 5. I don't see why you can't replace the majority of teaching with automation. There's the aspect of learning social interaction, but that's among the kids themselves to figure out. The teacher doesn't have to be a literal person.

It’s utopian, but the tools exist today and can and are utilized. The problem is complexity, of computers can teach it won’t be as in depth as a tutor, but can be better than teachers.

You can also do this online. In chess you don’t have complexity so the best bots can beat the best experts. You can learn languages with tapes and digital materials.

In an increased complex environment, this is not realistic until/if they catch up which is possible.

Re: Technorealism (1998)

#36

Post by cma »

GhettoComputers wrote: post #33
cma wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A third option with both funding and no artficial scarcity: https://cepr.net/report/the-artistic-freedom-voucher-interne... Everyone gets money to spend as patrons for people contributing to the commons.

What is artificial scarcity? I don’t disagree with funding arts, in fact I think that STEAM would be a superior system to STEM, but we don’t even fund STEM research enough today, even though many of the best scientists had artistic abilities: not full inference.

> What is artificial scarcity?

The copyright system allows artificial scarcity to help fund things by restricting copies. But it doesn't have to be done that way.

Re: Technorealism (1998)

#37

Post by GhettoComputers »

cma wrote: post #36
GhettoComputers wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is artificial scarcity? I don’t disagree with funding arts, in fact I think that STEAM would be a superior system to STEM, but we don’t even fund STEM research enough today, even though many of the best scientists had artistic abilities: not full inference.

> What is artificial scarcity? The copyright system allows artificial scarcity to help fund things by restricting copies. But it doesn't have to be done that way.

In history it has been the most productive and innovative, because research and development takes time and money. The wright brothers are patent trolls who prevented the US from making plane designs, but without them we wouldn’t have modern flight. If we took away this incentive I doubt the world would be better. Currently you have this system where countries that don’t respect patents will just make it anyway, the US did against Europe and China does against the US.

Asia did not have patents and Europeans did. If my ideas aren’t my own and anyone can copy it, I wouldn’t want to put efforts into something others will clone.

I think patents are a necessary evil at least enough of it to make innovations, but foreign copycats and bootlegs serve this market well.

Re: Technorealism (1998)

#38

Post by lawrenceyan »

Barrin92 wrote: post #23
lawrenceyan wrote: post #14

I agree with everything except 5. I don't see why you can't replace the majority of teaching with automation. There's the aspect of learning social interaction, but that's among the kids themselves to figure out. The teacher doesn't have to be a literal person.

It's a pretty big claim to state that social interaction is 'for kids to figure out'. Social interaction, one of the most important facets of life, requires teaching and guidance as much as anything else. In fact proper socialization if anything requires more guidance by responsible adults than some technical subject. Given that the manifesto takes a decidedly humanist stance on technology its not surprising. Educati…

I think I should clarify. Kids have to figure out social interaction, but generally like you say, the adults make sure that it’s in a relatively controlled environment with supervision. A mostly hands-off approach with some guidance/nudging is probably the best way of teaching (in my opinion).

Sure, we live in a society. I think we all understand that. Technology is there to facilitate the transmission of teaching. There will always be a group that creates the curriculum, but students don’t necessarily need to have an actual person at the intake point. So while I agree that you can’t rely solely on technology, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t invest in it, which I fear is what’s being implied by your statement.

As a purely practical example, right now the average current ratio between teachers and students is still somewhere around 30:1 or 20:1, which pretty much makes it impossible for consistent individualized attention. Ideally we could get to a 1:1 ratio, but that’s unrealistic. Effective use of technology though can be used to dramatically improve the leverage and reach of a teacher such that a lower ratio could be simulated in some sense. Not perfect, but it sure would help a lot.

Re: Technorealism (1998)

#39

Post by ctdonath »

dredmorbius wrote: post #32
ctdonath wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense. Never has everyone has more access, producing & receiving, whatever information they want - and nigh unto free. The issue isn’t cost, it’s inundation.

The mix is an issue. Much of what's freely-available is low-quality at best, propaganda (or worse) in the worst case. Curation itself has value, and yet is constrained. This is in fact a major theme of Andrew Shapiro's The Control Revolution , and one of the tired arguments still encountered frequently today which was entirely anticipated over two decades ago.

Calories aren’t free. They’re not just there for the redistribution.

What is one’s fair share of what another has worked to produce?

Anyone can, for vanishingly low cost, distribute or access nearly any information they like. Yes, curation is important - and, like other work, has value worth trading for calories.

Why the insistence on devaluing work, insisting the caloric cost of productivity not be compensated per its value to others?

Re: Technorealism (1998)

#40

Post by CRConrad »

ctdonath wrote: post #39
dredmorbius wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mix is an issue. Much of what's freely-available is low-quality at best, propaganda (or worse) in the worst case. Curation itself has value, and yet is constrained. This is in fact a major theme of Andrew Shapiro's The Control Revolution , and one of the tired arguments still encountered frequently today which was entirely anticipated over two decades ago.

Calories aren’t free. They’re not just there for the redistribution. What is one’s fair share of what another has worked to produce? Anyone can, for vanishingly low cost, distribute or access nearly any information they like. Yes, curation is important - and, like other work, has value worth trading for calories. Why the insistence on devaluing work, insisting the caloric cost of productivity not be compensated per i…

But curation is the work nobody wants to pay for now, isn't it?

"Calories" and "caloric cost" is a funny measure of value. Especially ironic given that from a nutritional perspective, they're what the poor get too much of and the rich do their best to avoid.

In the information-nutritional world, dross ("empty calories") is what FAANG throws at the plebeians to milk them of their money ("caloric value"?). So yeah, now it makes sense: You've got your "valuable" and "not valuable" bass-ackwards; what you come off as valuing highly is the offal that the rich throw to the poor.

Post reply on HN