61–70 of 105 posts
Although I like where this satire is coming from, I find the actual execution to feel a little bit too strawmannish.
> This will help you to conveniently find the products that match your taste, your wallet, and your societal value. To increase your societal value, just be yourself and actively contribute as much as you can. Your efforts will not remain unrewarded. This is supposed to be dystopian etc, but don't we already have this mechanism in place in our current world? It's called money.
I think the dystopian aspect is that it's an AI judging your value, not other people giving you some of their finite money based on your value to them.
We tried to create everyday objects from a fictional world in which we somehow chose to be governed by algorithms. The scariest thing about it was that nothing we came up with doesn't already happen in some way.
That's a natural side effect of the kind of systems you are exploring. They kill creativity and innovation, which is an enemy of cybernetic control. If your students seem stuck at a pedestrian level of imagination the system is working - to protect itself from being anticipated. On the other hand, the fact you're still allowed to do this at least shows it considers you have some value yet to extract.
We tried to create everyday objects from a fictional world in which we somehow chose to be governed by algorithms. The scariest thing about it was that nothing we came up with doesn't already happen in some way.
The same is true if conspiracy theories. QAnon is absurd dangerous nonsense, but upper-class human trafficking rings do exist (see: Epstein). The Great Reset is likewise absurd (the people who attend the WEF are dangerous, malevolent, and powerful, but the WEF itself has no real power) but the anxiety about it reflects our awareness of how the upper classes see us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the dystopian aspect is that it's an AI judging your value, not other people giving you some of their finite money based on your value to them.
No, because in practice it is not real people but corporations (institutional, ersatz paperclip maximizers that shall exist until some capitalist accidentally “innovates” a real one) that control all the money and who gets it. We already live in a dystopia; the only difference is that, thus far, the adversarial AIs still need humans called executives to run them.
Corporations are not perfect, but generally speaking they are just scaled up versions of individual workers. A one-person company or a 1000-person company might each need capital investment to get their business going. And they get money by providing value. They don't get to just have it.
Now I'm exaggerating slightly, but it seems very odd to view the world as though corporations run it, other than to reflect the fact that corporations are made up of people.
The happiness patch sounds like it would undermine everything else. If you want people to be able to make the best of themselves, you need strong people, not weak ones with zero resilience.
Really reminds me of Tom Scott's dystopian-future talks
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, because in practice it is not real people but corporations (institutional, ersatz paperclip maximizers that shall exist until some capitalist accidentally “innovates” a real one) that control all the money and who gets it. We already live in a dystopia; the only difference is that, thus far, the adversarial AIs still need humans called executives to run them.
I disagree. The state controls the money to a great extent. It can take it, and it can make more of it, and it can lock you in a box if you don't give it, and it can force (some of) you to go and die fighting another country. Corporations are not perfect, but generally speaking they are just scaled up versions of individual workers. A one-person company or a 1000-person company might each need capital investment to g…