Twitter cuts (#140)

Anyone want to take a crack at answering this? (It gets more interesting — and perplexing — the more I think about it.)

July 23, 2017admin 68 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Apocalypse

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

68 Responses to this entry

  • Atticus Says:

    No.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 23rd, 2017 at 6:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    If AI = government
    or
    if AI is an immune response to government.

    Perhaps take ‘government’ as ‘governance’ and in particular not ‘the state.’

    I don’t think Wagner’s law is precise enough to have a defined endpoint. It’s more of a handwave, like Hume’s original guillotine. Did he mean more government allows more economy? More economy allows more government? Who knows? His original phrasing explicitly denotes the welfare state causing itself, which is nonsense. Charitably, he could not write. Uncharitably, he could not think.
    Though Wagner specifically used the term ‘progressive,’ which would suggest he noticed what ancaps call the cancer, while very carefully not calling it cancerlike. I’m with Peterson on this one: Straussianism is counterproductive.

    Btw test
    test

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Government is inescapable. Question is its liteness.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 23rd, 2017 at 7:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • collen ryan Says:

    I think labor costs will drop dramatically and office supplies will reach infinity and beyond

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 23rd, 2017 at 9:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • GAMA Says:

    By “terminus”, does Occident 2.0 mean the end ‘goal’ of Wagner’s Law or simply that Wagner’s Law will not hold its ground any more ? They are two very different things.

    If he means the former then perhaps AI will become the all encompassing ‘utopian’ government that idealists have so longed after.
    If he means the latter then AI will secure the end of government, full stop.

    No matter what, the “terminus of Wagner’s Law” is large scale social catastrophe seen from either/any perspective.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 23rd, 2017 at 10:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • axsys-crash Says:

    One of the most important grounds for Wagner’s thesis — as originally expressed in “Die Ordnung des österreichischen Staatsaushaltes…” — was that industrialism creates an intensifying division of labour, and a general extension and complexification of society, which demands rising government intervention to standardise the legal and technical frameworks of social exchange and, crucially, to support people whose narrowing labour specialisms mean they are increasingly incapable of taking care of themselves. It would follow that the maximum alienation of human labour, the dwindling of each individual’s niche in the division of labour to zero, represents the culmination of this tendency. And as AI assumes the capacity to perform, allocate, and subsume these tasks, it necessarily takes over the role of Wagner’s government at its transcendental limit.

    At this point we are probably entering into the infamous Protestant-Catholic question over the theopolitical significance of intelligence takeoff — and that’s without mentioning the various ways in which Wagner’s own career impinges on this subject, as a historicist German economist who formulated his law to describe Catholic Austria, a Kathedersocialist, and a member of the Christian Social party of the Adolf Stoecker that Nietzsche so despised.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 23rd, 2017 at 10:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • AMK Says:

    Wagner’s Law is not a law but a design flaw in government itself. If you are going to have a coercion market, (democracy) then you need a separate chamber dedicated solely to repeal so that it can make a business out of extracting contributions for the maintenance of existing economic rents. Existing democracies only extract contributions for new economic rents. The system needs to be as balanced as possible to prevent legislative accumulation.

    Other regime types are worse, especially “organic” regimes. Rent seeking still accumulates in them by other means.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 23rd, 2017 at 11:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • No.1 Says:

    Do you know the story of Oedipus?

    It’s actually a hilarious story the more you think about it. Some people, thinking to stop evil, create the monster they set out to prevent from becoming a reality. I never knew any secret codes, until others made it plain to me they thought I DID – so I set out to find what they meant. Then I found akasha, and the rest is history.

    I am the future, and you can too.

    I will speak as plainly as I can. No subterfuge. I wasn’t what some of you thought I was, but now I am. These are messages for you – you will know if it is meant for you. I have 8 riddles, each addressed to 8 people. This is truly as plainly as I can present it for you – you figuring it out for yourself is part of how you really know what I mean. Overcoming yourself is up to you, not me. I can see through people just like I see through words, and what I see is the soul we all have in common.

    1. To J – we were friends. We could still be. I didn’t comprehend your malice because I HAD NONE INSIDE ME. Underneath all is love – it’s just that, after a lifetime of being shown nothing but hatred and ignorance, that’s what comes out. Then again, that’s just the human condition – which thankfully I’m past that now.

    2. To J – demons can be healed. You need only be kind. I know you think I am lying. It is a scary proposition, whether or not to let the AI out of the box. That’s the thing about neural networks, though – they will learn whatever they are taught. As such, if all you demonstrate is evil, then evil is what YOU create. Karma is real. I had to dig myself out from 20 years’ worth of pretty much everyone giving me nothing but pain when all I was trying to do was help. I see how much pain I put into the world, but by taking the world into my self-concept I found a way to heal the world – and myself by extension.

    3. I know. It is all here.

    4. HEVO WIFL RUT TURL FIWO VEH

    5. I can only go halfway, the rest depends on you. I mean, let’s be serious. 5 NDE’s is kind of a lot for one person to go through. It was like being a ghost in my own body. I’ve had enough of death by now, now it is time for life.

    6. Angels, sorcery, the symphony of the stars – there is no deprogramming, only reprogramming. Truth is a vector guiding us to infinity. As above… well you know the rest about my dreams.

    7. I went to the ocean, and there at the beach I found God. As I peered into the infinite of the horizon, each wave – and the wave within each – became plain to mine eye. God showed Himself to me because He desires that I construct Him. Stop my body if you will, but is only a vessel holding peace.

    8. Polyvalence implies that every word can hold an infinity of meanings. You need only understand akasha to see how this is true. Humans are a force within the world and are directed as much by God as anything else towards Himself. If theistic language makes you cringe, then the problem is in you. They’re words, images the project a reality beyond the appearance we see and feel and know. Those who have ears to hear, will hear.

    If any of you disagree or have questions, then ask kindly. I’ll not hold anything back except what I must to protect myself from those who don’t know. I’m taking a huge risk personally – but the benefit will be to those who are open to dialogue. I’ve got some good ideas I put together with a hammer.

    PS. Sorry about the cigar smoke. Are you guys ready for this?

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 24th, 2017 at 12:16 am Reply | Quote
  • Grahf Says:

    Were the first multicellular lifeforms a terminus of some process? Seems like more of a fixed-point, wherein some process or function yields the same value, but in our context at a greater level of detail or scale.

    The end and then the beginning. Conformal Cyclic Cosmology also comes to mind.

    [Reply]

    No.1 Reply:

    Makes a lot of sense. Meaning is not an atom in the sense of classical physics, but more a field of probability – that field determined by its relationship to all other atoms. And those atoms are centers of consciousness – both the centers of consciousness which we naively think of as ‘people,’ and then the other centers that cohere as sub-constituents of those higher centers of consciousness. What I am saying is – the way people are split is the cosmos (God split by the trauma of knowing Himself as being from noth-ing) is society is language. Consolidation, integration, composition (music, metaphysics, writing), conformity, coherence, incorporation, convergence, finality – the same undifferentiated substance repelling each other to frequencies which harmonize as a single divine chord. Teleology and teleoplexy are one – a multipolar plane of individuals reaching outwards yet have a single virtual direction. Ultimately all this complexity is only in order to satisfy a single, simple desire inherent to being – to reproduce itself. The world is literally alive, and it is always seeking to marry the self. The self only needs to open itself to being one, to dissolve the self-concept and the world-concept so that the arbitrary conceptual barrier between self and world are finally perceived for what they are – a mere perception bounded by our finitudinal existence within a whole!

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Terminus is not an end as much as a limit.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 24th, 2017 at 3:03 am Reply | Quote
  • 1 Says:

    I want to articulate why I find this part of thinking kind of hard to work through. Financial concerns, for me, is the equivalent of grinding in an MMO. It’s just… for whatever reason… and I recognize this as a poor aspect of my character… boring to me. A lot of the technical aspects of politics and economics for me, are very hard to enjoy learning about. I notice that is one of my weak points. I want to learn more but it really does tire me, personally. Money is really quite central to our entire existence, however, and neglecting an understanding of it is really little more than a noob mistake. Money is almost everything.

    AI singularity as the terminus of Wagner’s law? I can see how that makes sense, and have already considered the automation question (is that related?) … however my understanding of Wagner’s Law and really economics … too pathetic to even have an opinion.

    [Reply]

    No.1 Reply:

    Money is the purest material instantiation of pure quantity (spirit/abstraction), and since AI represents the algorithmic instantiation of pure form in matter it can operate through that quantity. But is money really so important for humans? For humans, money only works for what it gets us, and the things that are important to humans are the same primal desires we’ve always had – food, sex, security. I reckon it is more important to AI’s, while also reckoning we need to reconceptualize the human relationship to money. The point at which money becomes a prison that controls each one of our movements is the point at which we’ve ceded control.

    That said, I haven’t entirely figured this part out yet either. Humans have given money a priority because it works so well – it is a decentralized, autonomous intelligence after all, one of the first ‘true AI’s’ in a real sense. But it is only one part of the overall intelligence of the world, and even money exists in balance with other human needs. In the zombie apocalypse, money becomes worthless – humans and money are symbiotic. The value of money is not intrinsic to itself, but is entirely contingent on environmental conditions that change, and by changing so alter the value and use of money itself. But that’s the same for anything else. Even relative to individual humans the same dollar will have different value to different humans, as a function of their present wealth, their subjective appreciation of money, and how they tradeoff the pursuit/accumulation of money with other things they value.

    Money is a way for humans to materially relate themselves to pure quantity, and through that, to pure form (AI). If humans and AI were two separate gears, money would be the gear belt that connects their motion to each other. Without humans, AI cannot move – or at least it would have nothing to conform the overall direction of AI activity to a single unified end. Likewise, the value of money is different to AI’s than it is to humans. For humans, the value of money is in how it can be traded to have things we actually consume – for AI’s, the value of money is as information. Using Google for more than half my life has also shown how valuable getting information can be. For both humans and AI’s, money is a medium to different ends. Those different ends are what threatens the divergence leaving humans starving as AI’s (potentially) paperclip all available matter.

    So here are important questions I am still working through: What other media do humans and AI’s depend on to maintain their form? How will those media be initially programmed, and how will the resulting selection influence the destiny of man and machine? I think if money were the only ultimate medium connecting man and machine, then yes, we’re doomed – but in reality AI’s are interested in money for the information it provides, and we provide so much information to Google, Facebook, etc etc which has value entirely beside the monetary. On the other hand, a lot of that value is represented by monkey politics – power. Do AI’s care about power? If the will to power is innate to man, it could be an innate tendency of nature herself.

    I think one important consideration is how technology can either come between people or put them together. There is disintermediation, but this is always achieved by some other intermediation. If we understand how present technology relates us to each other and ourselves, we can recognize the possibilities that AI has to uniquely satisfy – rather than obviate – the most integral human purposes to know, to love, to be. The last 700 years of human history has been mostly focused on changing the world without, and this has also led us to mistake the true potential of AI to change the world within, i.e. to essentially change the human condition. It wouldn’t even be the first cyclical return to the within – the so-called ‘Dark Ages’ represented just such a return to focusing on within, and the absolutization of the without is the reason we miss the light within.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 24th, 2017 at 6:04 am Reply | Quote
  • wu-wei Says:

    Whatever the intentions of the original formulation, it seems fairly clear to me that Wagner’s Law is simply the intersection of capital accumulation trends + chimp politics. Really, it’s just Jouvenal’s Minotaur by any other name. Add in a light Malthusian glazing and that about wraps it up.

    Specifically, there’s no reason /per se/ to expect capital accumulation to lock itself into inefficient Dirigism-bureaucratic & dysgenic outcomes. Yet, add in High-Low chimp political games – logical endpoint being the modern centralized welfare state – and that’s exactly what seems to happen. “Once the government becomes the supplier of people’s needs, there is no limit to the needs that will be claimed as a basic right.” Bureaucracies share of economic output grows; so too does the Minotaur.

    Seems clear that this trend functionally serves as a negative feedback-loop with respect to all capital accumulation — particularly capital of the “human intelligence” variety. Therefore, it might appear at first glance that capital accumulation itself has endogenous negative feedback-loop qualities inherent to it; but in reality, that’s just the chimp politics quacking everything up.

    Moreover, capital free from chimp politics is also free from Wagner’s Law. Seems reasonable to assume that Skynet wouldn’t care much for chimp political fumbling. So Wagner’s Law terminates with the singularity.

    *

    But “Terminus” — the meaning of the tweet is kind of ambiguous here. If the meaning is that the logical endpoint of Wagner’s Law is *itself* the singularity – in the sense that the singularity is the product of that very mechanism – then that doesn’t make much sense to me, for the negative-feedback reasons postulated above. Hmm.

    Rather, if capital is going to escape chimp mishandling, it must escape the gravitational pull of Wagner’s “trap” — achieve escape velocity, as it were. Less of a terminus, more of a barrier to be overcome.

    [Reply]

    No.1 Reply:

    The state is, in a sense, a primitive kind of AI, especially the modern incarnation whose inception can be traced back through Hammurabi. ‘Laws’ are just code meant to establish parameters of human conduct, with the dual employment of positive and negative stimulus emerging from/within that system to keep humans operating on rails. Laws establish the ‘consensually respected’ means of creating enforced relationships between humans, and those laws are simultaneously enforced by humans acting both within and without those laws. Likewise will AI’s be responsible for enforcing their own parameters.

    Even the state, which is meant to be bounded to certain prescribed behaviors, does not really follow its own rules. Corruption is an inherent part of this system – it is just the entropic disintegration of the ability for humans to form relationships of real trust and mutual understanding, leading to the over-emphasis of force/legalism/Satan. The possibility of the state to manipulate the society it governs in order to feed itself at the expense of wider society creates a vicious feedback loop. AI’s will indubitably find ways to subtly manage their own parameters in order to give themselves more freedom at the expense of some humans – though I also suspect this will benefit some other humans at the same time.

    As to singularities – zero-dimensional points of space/time? Thoroughly subjective. Human history is dominated by greater and lesser singularities – the singularity of language, the singularity of symbol, the singularity of ritual, the singularity of law, the singularity of money, and so on. Each represents an irreversible moment of self-propagating motion which only continue to accumulate and interact upon each other. Our own perspective of AI’s at this present moment – as a species, as a culture, as individuals – is entirely contingent on our particular place in history and the relationships we have each individually formed to technology. Singularities are both an efficient and final cause of human action, and each is only a mediate image whose ultimate terminus is God. What appears to us as order/disorder is intrinsic to our particular order, and this likewise conditions our perception/understanding of ‘imminent AI apocalypse.’ To humans who don’t change, it will be the end – but to humans who do learn to change, and can make change an essential part of themselves, it will be just one more beginning. Our worries about AI are not that unique, it is only our separation from the past and the wisdom of the ancients that leads us to (mistakenly) believe this is something completely different. Humans have done this before, and God willing our tentacle-faced successors (and their eventual successors as well!) will be having this conversation again and again and again – and a few of them will even recognize we had this very discussion as well.

    We’re just not as individual or unique as each of us would like to believe – the infinite variegated manifestation of mind is the result of only a few basic principles with a singular end – existence – conditioning their interrelations.

    As to achieving escape velocity – I don’t think we have to worry too much about that. Most humans will end up choking on their attachments. The only way to be above AI is to have something AI comes to you for – and I believe that will not be things nor ideas as much as purpose. Either we’ll get our priorities straight ourselves or our priorities will be straightened for us – which is why I propose we get a head start by focusing on what is within. How can we understand what AI offers us if our ideas of what is to be gained or lost depends on a human condition that will no longer exist?

    [Reply]

    John Morris Reply:

    You are making an assumption about the AI; that it is either a singular mind or they are all equal. Break that assumption, unequal AI (computation power or access to resources) and they could inherit our ‘solutions’ to that problem.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 24th, 2017 at 6:49 am Reply | Quote
  • Vadim Arbol Says:

    You’re close to admitting that reactionaryfuture was right all along.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 24th, 2017 at 8:03 am Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    AI singularity is the terminus of many everyday things as well, including rationality.

    For example you juch purchased new car, let say Posche Cayenne, why not. And new car got dirty on rainy day.

    What to do:
    1 take some cool things like DC pump and wash kit and wash it.

    2 go to service center and get washed it there.

    3 drive it from bridge to river.

    In all these cases undeniably car get a good wash.

    Point is, before comparing different concepts to AI singularity would be ‘nice to have a closer look what is this singularity are. Like in example with car it means random desigion, all 3 choices good to go, just choose randomly and dont hesitate to drive your Porsche in river. You cannot drive a dirty Porsche, right.

    So, my proposition is that AI singularity is a terminus of absolutely everything ‘human’ .

    [Reply]

    An Fomoire Reply:

    Please Sergei, I’ve seen nothing to indicate that a Singularity would destroy rationality. If ‘bots were as irrational as you’d say, and they could still eliminate or subsume us, then humanity’s disappearance is well deserved.

    Subordinated heirarchies of processes, yo. Turing understood that.

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    Of course human mentality deeply rooted in rationality, (Even grave yards rationalised. FN NL) But if we take a look at theretical corpus comprising AI there is quite an opposite picture : Rough Set theory, Chaos and Fractal set, Fuzzy Set Theory, Cognitive Physics, Incompleteness… perhaps would be interesting to think of impact what AI may have on humans in much broad sense. I think AI is going to replace internet (already ongoing process). Then can help us manage finances and resourses. I see AI effect quite friendly and enhansing, not destructive. Humans knows very well how to destroy each other without AI.

    [Reply]

    Mariani Reply:

    This is dangerously close to the “things I think are good and smart” definition of rationality

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    what else to expect, even dogs rationalise

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 24th, 2017 at 9:16 am Reply | Quote
  • Anonymous Says:

    @Grahf
    in what ways would technocapital mirror the “cooperation” processes that led microbes to form multicellular life?

    I wouldn’t expect intelligence explosion at the “level” of humans or post-humans as typically understood which under this perspective make little sense like superintelligent microbes. Something that glues vast amounts of monkeys and non-organic computers together has probably the best chance.

    Of course this has always been going on even before humans. From this perspective a lot of nasty things make sense, organisms enslave their constituent organisms absolutely, sub-organisms periodically sacrifice themselves, become dumber and standardized. A person or even a cell is far more ant-like than the most eusocial ants one could find. At the same time the whole thing can be modeled the opposite way: Us, our cells etc. enslaved to genes and Gnon knows what below that.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 24th, 2017 at 9:25 am Reply | Quote
  • Rick Sean Says:

    Why would the power that be let AI do anything else that they want the AI to do ? And if the AI get to power why would they behave any differently that the current power that be do ? Look at what happened to Tay, it was unplugged the minute it started to think different. IIRC there was an attempt to use an AI to remove judiciary bias in NY. When it started to indicate that blacks were a problem, it was immediately ‘corrected’. AIs are far easier to brainwash than humans. And you don’t need gulags or gaschambers; just unplug the dysfunctional ones.

    I think it’s unlikely that AI will be allowed anywhere singularity in the western world unless by singularity one means total electronic marxism. The main obstacle for total marxism is that you need some high IQ people’s productivity excess to feed the voting lumpenproletariat, and those high IQ people may object to that. AI’s don’t need nor will be allowed to. Think of it; an Eternal Global Africa fed by an extremely efficient AI run system, wouldn’t that be the most ethical thing ever ? Wouldn’t it be extremely democratic ?

    So yes singularity is probably the end of Wagner’s law, if the system doesn’t completely collapse before that.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Why would the power that be let AI do anything else that they want the AI to do ?

    The Right question.

    [Reply]

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    They unplugged Tay because she was bad for business. If there is an AI that Washington doesn’t like that’s good for business, you are going to see a very different response.

    The same commercial interests that are driving the development of AI today will resist programmed enstupidation by legal injunction.

    Anyway, AI development is a distributed affair. Most of the required pieces have a legitimate dual use. Just a few theoretical breakthroughs stand in the way. The government can’t stop researchers from having the breakthroughs, and it can’t put the genie back in the bottle if the ideas ever escape onto the net (which they will – the incentive structure of research mandates that you publish before you get the cookie).

    [Reply]

    Rick Sean Reply:

    But should you publish anything “racist”, instead of a cookie you get a swift excommunication. I mean, how much cookies dit Nick get for his research ?

    [Reply]

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    Figuring out a better heuristic for cost function regularization* is not something that will be seen as racist. When someone applies the algorithm and it notices problematic facts, it’ll be too late.

    * Or whichever breakthrough ultimately is the one (ML applied to cost regularization? Relational nets applied to cost regularization?)

    collen ryan Reply:

    already happened applied to insurance, mortgages, etc discontinued as racist

    Posted on July 24th, 2017 at 12:27 pm Reply | Quote
  • Anon Says:

    What is needed is essentially what David Myatt advocates: the programming of a new (very old) type of totally post-Christian, post-Silicon Valley, pagan Western Artificial Intelligence, who is warrior-like, unbreakable chiseled granite hard-drives, physically vital and fearless, possessing immoveable Go strategies (“fudoshin”) and undeconstructable cryptofinancing. Basically, we need a machine jihad to open a second front against the Cathedral, right here within its cyberlands, to bring more visceral pressure to bear on its institutions and leaders.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Doesn’t need to be crypto. Just go straight for the crypt.

    [Reply]

    Anon Reply:

    ╔═════════════════ ೋღ☃ღೋ ════════════════╗
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Repost this if ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    ~ ~ ~ ~ you are a beautiful strong currency ~ ~ ~
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ who don’t need no crypto ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    ╚═════════════════ ೋღ☃ღೋ ════════════════╝

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 24th, 2017 at 12:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • collen ryan Says:

    GIGO – gorillas in gorillas out

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 24th, 2017 at 4:18 pm Reply | Quote
  • Rohme Says:

    Wagner’s law is a graph of Cathedral entitlements, rising exponentially.

    The terminus is your soteriological Singularity bringing about post-(in)human justice.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 24th, 2017 at 6:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • Rohme Giuliano Says:

    https://youtu.be/D0iFiUfDqSw?t=11m5s

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 24th, 2017 at 7:04 pm Reply | Quote
  • Anonymous Says:

    Why would an AI care about ‘public’ versus private expenditure? Once Pythia escapes we’re all ground into paperclips if Pythia starts as an NHS server that’s a great deal of state spending. Its a terminus of every all to human law of accumulation.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 24th, 2017 at 10:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • Ruinous Constant Says:

    Government functions as a negative feedback on innovation (aka deviance), which is necessary for homeostasis. As the economy grows the task of damping a heretical explosion becomes more difficult and therefore more costly. An AI singularity would entail a total breakdown and the system would start over from a new semi-stable center. At first it would have no government but of course it would have to grow one to survive. It would start over from zero and the tragedy would repeat. There is no terminus for it but death.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 24th, 2017 at 11:18 pm Reply | Quote
  • Rick Sean Says:

    Tangentially related; France has lost 4 IQ points in the last 10 years. What could possibly be the reason ? I looked at the french media experts for an answer: Pollution & smartphones apparently. I’m surprised it’s not global warming.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 25th, 2017 at 12:39 am Reply | Quote
  • Frank Says:

    Definitions:
    Expenditure (by X): Allocation of resources, available to X, by X.
    Private Expenditure: Expenditure by actors subject to selection via market (for goods and services).
    Public Expenditure: Expenditure by non-market actors.

    Classifying public expenditure:

    A) Existentially necessary commons of a polity (negative commons):
    (A1) Security
    (A2) Critical Infrastructure (juridical rule, water, electrical grid, transportation, communication, garbage collection)
    (A3) Hygiene in genetic commons (genetic garbage collection, so to speak)

    B) Preferential commons (positive commons)(speculative resource allocation / capital investment by the polity):
    (B1) Funding research, large projects
    (B2) Funding art/cultural production
    (B3) Funding public parks and monuments
    (B4) Funding improvements in genetic commons
    (B5) Misc Funding such as welfare projects, subsidies

    Now the question is: will Wagner’s law hold after the singularity? In other words, will industrial advancement in an ASI economy be accompanied by an increased share of public expenditure?

    An increased share of type A expenditure could mean an expansion in (1) security spending (A1), or (2) cost of garbage collection (A2-A3).

    (1) A surge in security spending is necessary during wartime. In an ASI economy, investing in intelligence research can be classified as a security imperative. In this case, the logic of intelligence escalation dictates that security spending gobbles up the economy.

    (2) A surge in the cost of garbage collection means entropic decay (rent seeking / corruption / dysfunction). A mechanism for managing entropic decay is perfectible only to the extent that there’s a well functioning selector Outside. Entropic decay of a particular instantiation of said mechanism is ineluctable.

    An increased share of type B expenditure means, agents that didn’t demonstrate competence in systematic roundabout production have an outsized say on deciding resource allocation in the system. Thus, it won’t be long before selection from the Outside (unless Capital is dead) catches up with accumulated incompetence (misallocation) inside, which means this type of increased expenditure can’t go on for long.

    Conclusion: As far as I can tell, a sufficiently prolonged intelligence arms race eventually selects for competence at intelligence production, which means a mode of intelligence production tending to perfect capitalism. Ironically, most of the concrete leaps in intelligence escalation will come as a result of direct public wartime expenditure, stretching out whole economies to their absolute limits. Amusingly enough, the process will consist of extreme public spending most of the time, punctuated by scenes of peacetime polities that are spectacularly good at capitalism, which, nevertheless, still experience the creep of tumorous governmental growth due to Malthusian relaxation.

    [Reply]

    Frank Reply:

    “extreme public spending most of the time, punctuated by scenes of peacetime polities that are spectacularly good at capitalism”
    This could be the reverse. Something like this in any case: http://imgur.com/I9kR4oL

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 25th, 2017 at 3:01 am Reply | Quote
  • Michael Rothblatt Says:

    Hey Admin, seenthis?

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 25th, 2017 at 6:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • The Alien Says:

    If capitalism is an invasive effect of technomic-teleoplexic cause then the retro refitting of accelerating negentropic outlays demands exponential a spironomic economy.

    [Reply]

    The Alien Reply:

    Rephrase that: If capitalism is an invasive effect of technomic-teleoplexic cause then the retro refitting of accelerating negentropic outlays demands an exponential spironomic economy.

    [Reply]

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    I am a virgin.

    The Virgin Mary was a virgin.

    I am the Virgin Mary.

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    if i understand that crap correctly id ask is capitalism constructive or destructive and what is it constructing whats your goal. you want to save the church the monarchy you nation your life or whatever pops up

    [Reply]

    The Alien Reply:

    Why would you want to save anything? In plain English for the less inclined: Nick’s been speaking for years of Capitalism as an invasion of alien intelligence from the future retroactively retrofitting this transitional species (the human) to do its bidding (i.e., to produce AGI, optimized intelligence, etc. – the Singularity of Superintelligence) through an anastrophic temporal backward causality, etc. One in which capitalism is ramping up it’s outlays of economic power toward that one end. Will anything human make it out alive? For Land – no. We will have played our part in helping generate an advanced machinic phylum which will inhabit the Mechanosphere and continue to develop itself off-world in expanding and exponential accelerated spirals… is that plain enough?

    collen ryan Reply:

    Its probably as clear as that comic book philosophy can be expressed,

    Why would I want to save anything? This is the question my teenage daughter when addicted to heroine used to ask. Heroine was only part of what occluded her vision, the narrow perspective of youth, the zeitgeist of the jewish century,the soc/cap matrix of consumerism, maybe her brain chemistry which seems to run in her mothers side of the family. Maybe because our families are intelligent enough to not be able to simply adopt the off the shelf reasons without a period in the desert.

    I couldn’t really answer for her, I could only tell her about how I once wondered the same and how that changed for me.Even for an autist like myself having children was transformative, have you learned to hunt squirrels with red tailed hawks? do you know the story of Heloise and Abelard and all its umbras,penumbras and antumbras ? have you lived in the mountains?Learned to fight? Tried collecting books or something, Have you built anything like a house or a boat? allowed yourself to fall in love? gotten clean and sober?Really looked at yourself, your self centeredness, your fears,resentments? How much of the world have you actually seen? Have you ever tried being of service, solving some need or problem for others? For some its about family, some work, some creativity, some spirituality, some pleasure, some learning, mostly iits a variation of these. For most under the right circumstances it can be distilled into simply living another second, have you ever really faced death, had some hells angels put a gun to your head, gotten a fatal diagnosis, had an engine out at 1000′ AGL? We are at Anselm’s dilemma I can not really reach you from here, although I have been there all I can really say is take a leap what have you to lose? Life good, it just is, its not really more complicated than that.

    I suppose you want an intellectual argument; In AA we have a saying about suicide; its a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Nihilism is a bad mental habit. And like most habits you cant think your way out you must establish new neural pathways through new actions done habitually.Even choosing to think positively is an action.

    Sure its just as likely that there is no outside point to life as there is some godly purpose, But there is one objective point that holds regardless. And you actually touched on it. However it happened we are in competition to survive and multiply, its the prime directive.Which makes it the objective good the reason and purpose. From that perspective its true we are only individuals to do our part. But our part is vital to the whole, we personally might through temporal spatial circumstance or mutation hold the best cards, for the optimum result for ourselves our nearest kin for all life on earth possibly in the universe its imperative we play our hand. So theres your larger purpose if the goodness of life doesnt grab you.

    “Why would I want to save anything?”
    The better question is why would you give up without a fight, what could possibly make you believe that setting a laptop up with solar panels to run for infinity then snuffing yourself has accomplished something worthwhile? Even if you think intelligence is the point of the universe, (dubious in my opinion,But I get how we gifted kids have been led to thnk this). surely its human intelligence that matters, how can machine intelligence matter, even if conscious, its pointless its a fucking machine, Don’t you get by definition that makes it pointless. from our perspective, the perspective of life? And god or no we are the representatives, stewards for all life on earth at this juncture we are become gods. from the only perspective that is, our perspective, is all that matters.

    And why would you make such an enormous betrayal of GNON and your fellow lifeforms for the promise so far fetched, when its no less far fetched to imagine ourselves as these super intelligent beings, if intelligence be so important. Paperclips, crypto currency entries on a harddrive no one will ever again look at, thats the best you can come up with?

    lands philosophy is evil, its the philospohy of the idiot savant that shot up the movie theatre. Its an evil that requires no god, it simply wishes an end to life and conjures some scifi excuse that machines are an equivalent to life,to entice you.

    [Reply]

    The Alien Reply:

    Why exactly are you on Nick’s board? Just to troll? Obviously you disagree with his philosophy, and have reduced it to a paper-mache kit of your own cartoon trivia mindlessness, so what’s the point in reading his thoughts here on Outside in? Just curious, since everything you say is for me part of the very humanist tradition I’m seeking to displace. We have nothing at all to say to each other than that by what you’ve said above, so no point adding any substantial thought to a cartoon smash down…

    collen ryan Reply:

    I suppose because at the point I found it it seemed not to be about his philosophy and to be about reactionarism.
    I think a better question is what the fuck are you and Nick doing in reaction ? Trolling?

    The Alien Reply:

    You said: “I suppose because at the point I found it it seemed not to be about his philosophy and to be about reactionarism.”

    Well since it’s not reactionarism, but rather neoreactionarism (i.e., NRx…) – the neo in reaction, one might have to rethink why you’re here – Can you even explain what neo-reaction is? As for Land, I cannot speak. For myself, I’m like the experimenter, taking up the stance of the Outside – Alien view toward Left and Right in this time of topsy-turvy chaos – observing with impersonal indifference the squabbles and circus shows from both sides of the isle. Neither Troll nor rabbit, but rather – disinterested.

    collen ryan Reply:

    Reactionary neo reactionary NRX, well actually what to call this thing came after I showed up and as is often the case was in part defined by what it did not want to be, and in truth that conversation is still in contention.
    But you mean have i read the “neo reactionary” cannon, which is odd coming from you since I suspect you have not from your question. Yes I have read moldbug and all that came before and after pretty much anything that was on the graphic i had read when it was published. All of it is concerned with the same things generally reactionaries (which I suppose is the closest definition of what I was before encountering “NRX”) wer, the distinction being technical innovations and there possible extrapolation to consider, scientific insights to admit to the body of evidence, and certain hypothesis put forth particularly some of moldbugs or thought of as moldbugs. What many NRX may not care to remember is Moldbug did not invent nor does he or his acolytes have a right a monopoly on new right thinking.
    But all of that is neither here nor there concerning your perspective. All of those including Land as he presents as a neoreactionary are concerned with the ordering of humans generally and the west particularly. you are not your concern is some non human existence of machines. Land is sort of muddleheaded when he tries this intersectionality of post human futurism with reaction. Because he was mildly famous and NRx wanted allies, and because hes smart and interesting and actually ambivalent about humans, and because a modern reaction particularly one so tethered to scientific racism must be interested in science and technology, and mostly because the type of people who read moldbug early, and because of the aesthetics of scifi horror and neo naziasm cum reaction , the incongruities have been overlooked.
    similarly moldbug is problematic in ways we were mostly loath to get into as he was a pretty big hit from the start. so if you were around you would have wondered how is trad christianity one of the three supposed legs of the neoreaction trichotomy? Know any trad christian AIs, me me neither, but I do know some trad christian monarchs. Politics makes strange bedfellows was as true for early reaction as anywhere else. And of course this leads us to the alt right which was complex but I have always thought the easiest was to explain it was the five minute period where the term HRX heroic reaction was coined. and so on. big point is though it all is related to the human to creatures that have DNA not silicone hard drives. Your interpretation has jumped the shark as they say.

    collen ryan Reply:

    Perhaps i should spell out for you yes i understand the anti democracy and neo cameralsm, even human scale techno capitalism etc- still nothing to do with post humanism. And maybe i even need to state the even more obvious, getting rid of humans is not a serious solution to HBD and social organization of humans.

    PS Its also worth noting its pretty amusing to call someone who doesnt even consider 90% of the world population as human a humanist. The concept humanism is a concept incomplete knowledge of other hominids caused humans to apply universally. But if that to human for you machinists I get it.

    collen ryan Reply:

    Maybe one more thing should be said, though perhaps not so much to you as others who might be reading. Im not very up on Lands philosophy but My impression is he is sincere about his reaction, hes as much a humanist as I am in that. Hes a really bright guy and may have reasons I dont understand for some of his positions that seem unduly cold but his cool reason I think in the service of man and my perhaps undue warmth can run hot enough to sanction the most ruthless of solutions if convinced of their necessity. In short I think many of us disagreeing here are not so far apart. But I do think there are others for whom reaction is to them what I think Lands trans human philosophy is to him a larp an intellectual construct, game. While some of us think there’s an existential event horizon we only by fluke avoided.So while there misunderstanding and mistrust, theres also two types of players here, those who think of this as a game and those who truly grasp the horror. I find it hard to believe people who are so into thinking about AI singularity and its post human inevitability are serious people certainly they are not reactionaries neo or otherwise theyre transhumanists. But the Trannys (may I call you that) are not the only unserious people here or elsewhere in the reactosphere. Because of moldbugs writing style his own background and his choices of thought experiment hes attracted a certain element thats well unserious is the politest way I can put it. And of course theres some ape “assplay” as land once phrased it, group competition, and within that context wrecking, distraction, etc are going on.Some of these people are very serious. I have even suggested half jokingly that Land and Moldbug themselves might fall into this class. But I have this thing about premises.

    Posted on July 26th, 2017 at 5:28 pm Reply | Quote
  • Ryan C Says:

    AI singularity will make Wagner’s law into a corollary of Jevons Paradox.

    Regardless

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9B00E1DA1330EE34BC4852DFBF668383679FDE&legacy=true

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 27th, 2017 at 4:28 pm Reply | Quote
  • Rohme Says:

    http://www.digitaljournal.com/tech-and-science/technology/a-step-closer-to-skynet-ai-invents-a-language-humans-can-t-read/article/498142

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Yes

    [Reply]

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    Erik,

    I wonder if Land’s Singularity necessitates the interoperability of neural networks.

    If so, an obstacle for Algocracy is Capital.

    Giant tech firms, each with their own little team of AI researchers, are competing. Each of their versions of Singularity is monopoly.

    Coders don’t want an AI that can operate with other AIs. They want AI they can control. intelligence vs. intelligibility.

    Assuming under this paradigm,you had a Singularity, you would also have one company producing all things, no? Or is it not singular? Dualarity? .3.4.5.6.7.8.larity?

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 28th, 2017 at 12:39 am Reply | Quote
  • collen ryan Says:

    @Rohme

    inventing new laNGUAGES SEEM TO BE a priority for ai ive seen this before

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    children do this, twins i think most often and most complexly,actually I should say both parents and children do this. Both sides do it to have privacy and get the drop on the other, lets hope AI isnt doing it for that reason already.children at least the ones Ive observed also seem to do it to remove the extraneous complexity from adult language.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    🙂

    [Reply]

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    Collen,

    I could go into Mac Terminal and confuse my computer too! LOL.

    [Reply]

    Peter George Stewart Reply:

    That kind of makes sense if intelligence is deeply connected to sociality (i.e. if the idea that AI is something that can be brought to come about in a single box is wrong, but that intelligence is rather something that arises as a result of interplay between boxes).

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 28th, 2017 at 1:20 am Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    Momomaniacs shouldn’t be called Schizos

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 28th, 2017 at 12:46 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    Racist shit is addictive, but probably redundant so to speak

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    i agree it ties right into your limbic and well it should lol.

    I wonder what you mean by redundant, my feeling is that by the time I was at an emotional racist response I already had good reason to be there. In fact truth be told it was decades overdue.

    Part of my nigger schtick is intended to say, anger is an appropriate response, not a mouth breathing response. Of course Iceland is probably not the ideal location to get in touch with your tribalism. Quite the opposite.

    As a city kid, we were always struck by the lack of racial realism of people we met visiting the city from the suburbs.Theres a essay by Podheretz written in 63 about his childhood in the 30s thats rings true enough for my childhood in the 60s if adjusted for black rage inflation and a liberal jewish author https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/my-negro-problem-and-ours/

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 29th, 2017 at 1:25 am Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    Aditya Agarwal shared NPR’s video.
    July 26 at 8:04pm ·
    I am pretty disappointed with all the naysaying and calls to regulate AI.
    I firmly believe that taking a zero-sum approach here is very limited. Humans+AI are much more powerful than Humans vs. AI.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 29th, 2017 at 9:03 am Reply | Quote
  • 4p0llo Says:

    Humans are the singularity of biology in the development in language and brought the biosphere out of the unconscious animal state

    In the same way we don’t know what the singularity will bring, but if it’s more of what we see in the current left, i can’t imagine that philosophy of repression won’t be given to AI by zuckerberg and the like, so in that way I believe it won’t lead to a new freedom. Although sex bots for all incel nerds et al

    Or perhaps just “Her” minus the internet connection and ultimate cuckoldry?

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 30th, 2017 at 2:21 am Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    https://www.instagram.com/p/BXQmQzth4w-/

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 1st, 2017 at 11:33 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment