On 2/15/22 1:35 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
An Ising model would also work here where collective activities are encoded as
binary terms and the quadratic terms represent inter-subject affinity and
repulsion to those activities. For example, if a pig suffers, some support
staff might stop participating in the company or violate an NDA and leak to the
press. All those staffs' couplings to other binaries encoding various company
roles would then go to zero and not be able to participate in energy improving
contributions. Encoding enough binaries for the details of ONE company's
employees and their functions would be thousands of variables. Add in
consumers and watchdogs and competitors and it would be very hard to find a
global minimum, or even make progress.
But that's my point. The world would just seize-up if empathy was extended
without bounds, and every feeling reconciled. Just look at how slow the legal
system is already. From a computational complexity perspective, we need
coarser decomposable models, not yet more discovery. The reservoir of
unfairness, unhappiness, and grievance is without bound, and can easily be made
worse if one doesn't assume some ability to self-regulate.
I do expect that judicious but widespread application of DAOs through
blockchain/Distributed Ledger tech will automate this and even allow for
(promote) methods for the coarse-graining you suggest. I can't begin
to describe the myriad mechanisms required/implied or the (obvious to
some?) hitches in that conception, but I am curious enough to be hopeful
or vice-versa.
A close colleague of mine recently joined IOHK/global-Cardano with this
as a minor aspiration. He mostly just wanted a job where he could
write/think in Haskell without it being entirely about Crypto. He is
on the Marlowe <https://docs.cardano.org/marlowe/learn-about-marlowe>
team, but has a much broader apprehension/stake in the enterprise.
A relevant line from the Cardano splash page <https://cardano.org/>:
/With a leading team of engineers, Cardano exists to redistribute power
from unaccountable structures to the margins – to individuals – and be
an enabling force for positive change and progress./
and their governance application page <https://cardano.org/governance/>:
A model to marginalize none and give power to all - Our current
systtems do not work for everyone. A better, more positive future
is possible. If the world is to serve the many, it must be agreed
to by the many. Consensus must drive progress and where
disagreement occurs it must drive creative solutions
as best I can tell, Cardano is the only serious and yet fully
transparent system in this domain and that while there are plenty of
players in the Ada Crypto game for the same base reasons as many play at
the other Cryptocurrencies, there is something fundamentally different
afoot with this effort.
Or maybe I'm just a naive optimist
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam<[email protected]> On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 11:56 AM
To:[email protected]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] by any means necessary
Excellent! Thanks. However, it's also important to note that the lawsuit is
against UC Davis, not Neuralink. So, to whatever extent that Neuralink funding,
mixed with tax payer funding, drives university research (and possibly other
things like overhead or paying a percentage of salary for some with teaching
loads, etc.), those backseating costs can deeply impact whatever it is we call
a research university.
I'm about halfway into my "evaluation" ofhttps://consilienceproject.org/. What
I've seen so far has a healthy plating (I was going to say veneer, but that's too thin)
of pretty words. But those pretty words sound a tiny bit like Neuralink's corporatized
strawman/response to these accusations. I bring up Consilience because it's placed in
between a for-profit company and a research university. On Consilience's About page, you
see 2 ethical commitments:
• collective attribution of authorship, and • transparency in methodology
These may seem a bit contradictory to some observers. My guess is that, given
some time and effort (maybe even semi-automated NLP computation), I could
ferret out who wrote which featured article. What I'd like to be transparent is
who contributes what to each article. (This is a professional task I have to
some extent with my clients ... so it's not mere hobby.)
Going back to the lawsuit against UC Davis and the 3 example spectrum (and
perhaps even the political tangent SteveS raised), where does Neuralink end and
UC Davis begin? In our capitalist society, is it reasonable for Neuralink to be
less susceptible to the flattening you describe by aggregating (not summing
over) all subjects' projections from a high-dimensional construct?
We see a similar thread in the "academic free speech" rhetoric the alt-right is
pushing these days (though there are lefty exceptions) ... aka when is an academic not
talking as an academic? And in the Barret and Gorsuch exhortations that they're not
partisan hacks ... even when talking at a partisan event.
[sigh] I know these fluffy issues aren't interesting to most people. It's way
easier to shut up and calculate. But not only are they interesting to me, I
think they're necessary, then, now, and later.
On 2/15/22 11:30, Marcus Daniels wrote:
For some activity there will be a mesh of consequences, that perhaps with
enough transparency, debate, and observation the facts of the matter could be
quantified as a large graph. Across this graph, one could apply a subject's
function of the utility of each one of those consequences. If some of the
consequences are both illegal and observable and a node represented a risk to
the subject doing the assessment of the graph, then that node would probably
result in a negative utility for most subjects and perhaps it will overwhelm
other positive evaluations across other nodes. One could perform the same
procedure across all possible subjects. The sum would be a social evaluation
of the mesh of consequences. I think it would not be very useful, and not even
address externalized costs. Throughout this procedure the subjects' utility
functions would all be subject to advertising, propaganda, religion, blood
sugar and hormones. Measure twice you could get different answer.
If there are externalized costs that need to be recognized for the survival of
humans, then humans will have to create laws with large risks for those that
don't comply with them. (Case-by-case harassment, vigilantism, or terrorism
wouldn't scale as well.) My guess in this Neuralink case, is that if there
were any deviations from best practices, they will be aware of this risk in the
future. In the cynical view of it being propaganda, well, yes, they'll be
motivated to make the best kind they can and to set things up to
compartmentalize the most sensitive or emotionally charged information.
--
glen
When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
5/2017 thru presenthttps://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
5/2017 thru presenthttps://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
