Comment author: Lumifer 21 December 2015 10:24:48PM 4 points [-]

If anyone is trying to tell you it’s not complicated, be very, very suspicious

-- Tyler Cowen

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 23 December 2015 03:08:10AM 3 points [-]

I'd be even more suspicious of someone telling me that it's not that simple.

Comment author: Lumifer 22 December 2015 10:28:14PM 2 points [-]

How much do you trust economic data released by the Chinese government?

Not much.

If you want to explore further, I recommend this, for example this post.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 23 December 2015 03:04:43AM 8 points [-]

One interesting point, not expanded up on, is this:

One writer chalks this concern up to a bunch of “conspiracy theor(ies)”.

Balding dismisses this by citing Premier Li Keqiang, but I think this objection illustrates a deeper problem with the way the phrase "conspiracy theory" is used. It's frequently used to dismiss any suggestion that someone in authority is behaving badly regardless of whether an actual conspiracy would be required.

Let's look at what it would take for Chinese economic data to be bad. The data is gathered by the central government by delegating gathering the data to appropriate individual branches, by province, industry, etc. So what happens if someone at that level decides to fudge with the data for whatever reason (possibly to make his province and/or industry look better). The aggregate data will be wrong. And that's just one person on one level. In reality, of course, there are many levels in the hierarchy and many corrupt people in all of them.

Comment author: ChristianKl 21 December 2015 11:35:14AM 1 point [-]

Elon Musk cites first principle thinking in physics as a key to identifying neglected market opportunities. Can someone give me an example of how it may work in that application?

Recently moridinamael wrote about diswashers: As a pampered modern person, the worst part of my life is washing dishes. (Or, rinsing dishes and loading the dish washer.) How long before I can buy a robot to automate this for me?

If you reason from first principles then there's nothing stopping a device in which you input a pile of disher and that afterwards sorts them into the cupboard from existing. Especially with the recent advances in machine vision and google opensourcing Tensor flow.

Another nonautomated kitchen task is cutting vegetables. There no good reason why a robot shouldn't cut vegetables as well as humans.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 23 December 2015 02:26:32AM 1 point [-]

Recently moridinamael wrote about diswashers: As a pampered modern person, the worst part of my life is washing dishes. (Or, rinsing dishes and loading the dish washer.) How long before I can buy a robot to automate this for me?

Imagine what it was like before the dishwasher.

Comment author: ChristianKl 15 December 2015 09:40:54PM *  0 points [-]

Money (AKA the free market economy) is a way of allocating resources efficiency. The alternative - a command economy - is where some central agent decides how resources should be allocated.

Command hierachies are only one alternative to markets. Tribes and networks are two other forms.

Wikipedia for example creates a lot of value with being structured as a network.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 23 December 2015 01:47:36AM *  0 points [-]

Wikipedia for example creates a lot of value with being structured as a network.

Which fails completely when the subject is in any way political or controversial. And by fail completely, I mean produces articles which anti-correlate with reality.

Comment author: Xyrik 18 December 2015 10:24:54AM -4 points [-]

Yeah, part of what I was intending in the scenario would be that everyone realizes that we could make much faster technological advances (At least, that's the theory) if we didn't bother with keeping track of who owes who. We need resources such as metals, we get them, make the MacGuffin, and continue.

I suppose the real problem with this is some form of a game-plan, determining who needs what. So I guess what I'm thinking is a system that would require some flawless AGI to determine what group needs what resource at what time, to further the general human endeavor, rather than people getting what they want/need based on how much money they can amass, which is as we know a flawed system, or people like Donald Trump would not exist, while people starve to death in Third-World countries.

But the idea would be to use some system like this to vastly accelerate our speed of technological advancement, so that we can colonize the galaxy, become immortal, and eventually figure out how the world works. However that's not to say that I'm trying to really come UP with a system, because I'm sure such systems are already postulated, but just don't work, because of the whole 'greed' thing, but yeah. My query was mainly whether there could be problems not in developing the system, but in actually enacting such a system, even if it worked as intended.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 19 December 2015 02:31:38AM 1 point [-]

Yeah, part of what I was intending in the scenario would be that everyone realizes that we could make much faster technological advances (At least, that's the theory) if we didn't bother with keeping track of who owes who.

Except you need to keep track of who (or which algorithm if we want to be sufficiently abstract) is doing the most to contribute and being most efficient so that his success can be repeated in other parts of the system.

Comment author: WhyAsk 18 December 2015 04:45:21PM 0 points [-]

So we are locked into a stable, nowhere-near-optimum equilibrium. :(

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 19 December 2015 02:23:57AM 0 points [-]

It's not stable. The problems I mentioned are getting worse.

In response to comment by btrettel on LessWrong 2.0
Comment author: hg00 10 December 2015 08:11:58AM *  -1 points [-]

A reason to shut down the forum entirely instead of leaving it in its current state is that low quality posts made by randos here can hurt the reputation of the forum and the people & organizations that were at one time or another affiliated with it. See e.g. this farewell that someone linked to on SlateStarCodex. There places online like the /r/SneerClub subreddit where people will post something that one particular Less Wrong user said and make fun of it, which tarnishes the reputation of the site in general. Banning Lumifer and VoiceOfRa would help a little in the short term, but running a quality online forum requires ongoing maintenance.

In response to comment by hg00 on LessWrong 2.0
Comment author: VoiceOfRa 18 December 2015 02:44:12AM -3 points [-]

How about banning concern trolls like hg00?

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 17 December 2015 11:58:06PM -1 points [-]

Do you support or oppose the government suing tobacco companies to recover health care costs caused by tobacco use?

Do you support or oppose the government suing pro-immigration organizations to recover social service and law enforcement costs caused by the higher propensity of immigrants to commit crimes and be in need of social services?

Comment author: Lumifer 17 December 2015 03:34:56AM *  -1 points [-]

Informationally equivalent = plays a role in the flow of information within the system that is equivalent to the role of money in the flow of information within economy.

Merely writing a word in bold all caps does not grant it magical powers.

Surely it does -- it magically made you pay attention to it :-P

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 17 December 2015 07:46:23PM 2 points [-]

Informationally equivalent = plays a role in the flow of information within the system that is equivalent to the role of money in the flow of information within economy.

Ok, I don't see how that applied to the examples in question unless you expand the meaning of "equivalent" so broadly that it becomes meaningless.

Comment author: Clarity 17 December 2015 07:15:31PM -2 points [-]

What is an example of 'legitimate abuse'?

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 17 December 2015 07:43:27PM *  2 points [-]

This for example.

View more: Next