Notices by Vidar Hokstad / Galaxy Bound (vidar@m.galaxybound.com)

@phiofx @Benhm3 @pluralistic There's nothing Messiah-like about that. It is the logical conclusion of *rejecting* anything supernatural in the brain. *If* the human brain and consciousness is subject to cause-and-effect following known laws of physics, then any Turing-complete system can compute every function a brain can, and it is indeed inherently a question of computation. It may still be that we won't find the right way anytime *soon*.

Or maybe the brain is supernatural.

@Benhm3 @pluralistic This rests on an assumption that we know what causes consciousness and so know that the differences between "the next-word-predictor program" and humans fall on different sides of that divide. But that is both massively exaggerating what we know about consciousness and massively downplay current AI. To start with, the "next-word-predictor programs" are Turing complete with just a basic loop around them.

@Benhm3 @pluralistic It may not be inevitable that they will reach consciousness, but we simply don't know. Absent any evidence of anything supernatural in human brains that deviates from regular cause and effect, we don't know of any *barriers* to it.

But, sure, we also don't have any evidence to support the notion that it *is* inevitable.

@TruthSandwich @jhavok @futurebird His argument isn't that capitalism requires endless growth, but that capitalism running out of new markets has to compete on cost of production rather than expansion, and that this 1) will drive us towards post-scarcity, 2) will drive the demand for labour towards zero. His contention is then a) that society won't address 2 (e.g. by redistribution, UBI, or whatever), because the state represents the ruling classes, and b) this will eventually cause upheaval.

@TruthSandwich @jhavok @futurebird

You can of course reject all of that, or whatever subset. 1 and 2 is basically Marx taking capitalists at face value, and agreeing with them that capitalism great at driving down costs. While a and b reflects his belief that the ruling classes are motivated to protect their profits in the short run, and in doing so will prevent reforms that could make capitalism survive or at least delay change. Plenty of socialists, including some Marxists reject a/b too.

@TruthSandwich @jhavok @futurebird

Towards zero, not to zero. The point is not that it will succeed in getting rid of all labour, but that the more survival for companies depends on taking market share rather than developing new markets, the stronger the pressure is to drive down cost, and eventually the labour element will be the easiest to cut.

The only way this doesn't happen is if capitalism fails to do what its supporter claims it excels at. It's possible.

@TruthSandwich @jhavok @futurebird

That's great. For capitalism to survive this needs to continue *forever* without labour costs ever getting high enough to make automation of a sufficient set of jobs possible.

To me, that's magical thinking.

@TruthSandwich @jhavok @futurebird

Of course not. Automation is an inherent driver of capitalist productive improvements. It's one of the things Marx cheered on like a massive fanboy in the Communist Manifesto. However sufficient automation either requires infinite growth to provide additional jobs, or will eventually reduce the demand for labor.

Whether that means the end of capitalism depends on whether Marx was too cynical about society's ability redistribute or not.

@TruthSandwich @futurebird
Feudalism was terrible, but at the time it was better than everything else that had been tried. That does not mean it'd have been valid to conclude "maybe it's not so terrible".

I don't actually think it's very interesting whether or not people think socialism or communism can work.

I think it's more interesting why people think capitalism can survive, and why they think capitalism is somehow unique in not having failure mode that will eventually end it.

@Alon @TruthSandwich @futurebird

If you want an argument for why capitalism is better than anything before it that I fully agree with, read chapter 1 of the Communist Manifesto. Marx was a massive fanboy of capitalism..

He just expected it to eventually give way to something else, like every preceding system.

@TruthSandwich @Alon @futurebird

Yes, you've just explained in the first 3 tree paragraphs: 1) why it's more democratic, 2) why it tends to counter extremism.

You've then described in the 4th paragraph why FPTP fails to contain extremism, and forces "lesser evil" voting because for a large proportion of the electorate, their preferred option will have been eliminated and so is *not represented at all* in the final vote.

Thank you for thoroughly explaining why FPTP is fucked up.

@TruthSandwich @Alon @futurebird

Voting for the "best" candidate remaining after your preferred option is off the table is also voting for the lesser evil

The lesser evil framing is rooted in understanding that when you constrain choices, you prevent an accurate representation of what people want.

Yes, it's a fight for power, and with FPTP it's a fight that is thoroughly rigged, to the point it's utterly vile and disgusting to see people defend the effective disenfranchisement they cause.

@TruthSandwich @Alon @futurebird

You're arguing against representation of views you don't like. You're arguing for outright authoritarianism.

The favorite argument of authoritarians everywhere is to try to dismiss voters' right to representation if they don't hold the views you like the way you're doing here.

It's fascinating to me just how terrified right-wingers like you are of ensuring people's views are properly represented.

@TruthSandwich @Alon @futurebird

It's quite telling when you first argue for regulated capitalism, and then get all worked up over someone who by European standards is a mildly centre-left (at best) social democrat.

If you want to look at "somewhat functioning" capitalism, such as in Scandinavia, we all have economic systems far to the left of anything Bernie has pushed.

@TruthSandwich @Alon @futurebird

Representation proportional to your number is explicitly *not* provided by FPTP.

You know this, and you explain what a horrific risk it causes, *and* that you understand how this system deprives groups of representation, and you try to present this as a feature.

But all you're achieving is laying bare a typical anti-democratic attitude. A commitment to democracy is measured by how willing you are for those you label extreme to be represented too.

@TruthSandwich @Alon @futurebird And yet what he doesn't actually push anything even close to as radical as Sweden or Norway.

@TruthSandwich @Alon @futurebird

Nobody wants extremists in charge. Not even the people you consider extremists. But FPTP does not just prevent them from being in charge, but prevents a whole of people meaningful representation. Some of those will be extremists. Some of those will be people who consider you extremists. Democracy is allowing all of them representation on equal terms, and FPTP *inherently* gives disproportionate outcomes.

@TruthSandwich @Alon @futurebird

The US system doesn't remove the power of the fringe groups, it just shifts them inside the big parties and turns it into a "least evil" contest. The US system is fundamentally undemocratic (as it is in the UK, and France) because of how it effectively makes it untenable for a huge proportion of voters to actually vote for the representation they want instead of against the one they fear.

@TruthSandwich @Alon @futurebird

It's the only sane framing. You have exemplified it over and over in this thread by focusing on how pushing for what people think is good is damaging your change of getting something that can pass in terms of UHC for example.

This is *only* a problem because of your effectively two-party system. It's a discussion that hardly never happens in places with proportional systems.

I do sometimes take pictures of things other than foxes. This was 3 years ago today.

(But yeah, there might be another fox pic or two coming later)

#photos #photography