Machine learning and socialism

[Anonymous No.9925846]

Hello fellow /sci/entists.

The series of new videos by professor P. Cockshott, presenting a computer program for economic planning in socialist societies sparked in me the idea of becoming a machine learning engineer. Not for money, no, but because I believe machine learning offers a unique opportunity for the successful implementation of a socialist economy.

I have a few questions for you, just to generate discussion. I hope to read well thought out answers to these questions.

Do you think machine learning and big data will shift the neoliberal mindset in the West towards acceptance of socialism once the first full-data-and-AI driven economies become a success? China could very well be the first one of them.

Do you think machine learning and big data will allow planned economies to be the new norm in the word? Will the free-market become obsolete?

Why aren't you personally rooting for data/AI-driven socialism?

I'm a simple electrical engineer student but I'd like to apply machine learning into economic policies and help build the socialist future. Do you think I'll need a PhD for this task? Any encouragement/discouragement is welcomed.

Also, just wanted to say that using computers for socialist economic planning isn't new. In 1970, in Allende's Chile there was a project for cybernetic economic planning (pic related, main control room), but as we all know he was overthrown and the project didn't achieve it's full potential.

Also, just so we're all clear and on the same page, when I say 'socialism' I mean that the workers own the companies they work at. Machine learning and big data is what would be what tells the workers what's needed, where and how much. I believe with that with the amount of data there is nowadays, economic planning would be incredibly more efficient than the market. There just needs to be more research into this aspect of ML and less into ways to make people buy stuff (i.e. where ML is being used now, for running ads).

[Anonymous No.9925855]

Further reading on Allende's cybernetic socialist project, CyberSyn:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/13/planning-machine

Professor P. Cockshott recent videos:

https://youtu.be/Pqzj5hrnDCk
https://youtu.be/rtZQtEnGtLc

[Anonymous No.9925860]

>>9925846
Look into Stafford Beer's work as he a was a father of cybernetics and one of the main people in the project as well as the unimplemented ideas such as cyberfolk.

[Anonymous No.9925861]

>>9925846
I'm aware I asked mostly yes/no questions but I'm more interesed in WHY you think the answer is yes or no.

[Anonymous No.9925867]

cybersyn was a cargo cult

[Anonymous No.9925870]

>>9925846
You are basically saying we should give up our free will to a machine god.

[Anonymous No.9925874]

>>9925870
Not OP, but studying cybersyn, it's not some AI algorithm, humans are still in executive positions.

[Anonymous No.9925886]

>>9925870
Some people are starving, homeless and dying of curable diseases and other people are expending thousand of dollars in gold-covered chicken wings. What's free will for you? The only way to have free will is to implement an economic system that ensures the people's basic necessities are met. That's the basis for free will, the literal minimum. And currently we don't have that, or at least just for a few people, and it seems to be getting worse and worse.

Also consider that you already are giving up free will and placing all your faith on the market. Which is fucking crazy considering how many times it has crashed, over and over again.

[Anonymous No.9925897]

Bump

[Anonymous No.9925911]

I saw a lot of economy majors in the 'brag-about-your-university thread". Wonder why they won't show up here?

>inb4 t. top 300 university goer

[Anonymous No.9925922]

>>9925870
You are basically saying we should let people suffer the inefficiencies of an immoral system because your ego can't handle the loss of responsibility which you already do a horrible job of implementing.

[Anonymous No.9926402]

>>9925846
this could have been a good thread if you understood what a paragraph is

[Anonymous No.9926423]

>>9925846
Unironically kill yourself. You're a moron and will be the end of us all.

[Anonymous No.9926527]

>>9925846
>Any encouragement/discouragement is welcomed.

For a control theory metaphor, you are worrying about the "plant controller", and not about the "utility function".

In other words markets not only decide HOW to build things, but also WHAT to build, i.e., the demand that somewhat reveals the wants and preferences of people.

And you can't just ask what people want, because they don't fucking know it consciously.

That's how you end up with factories making millions of only left boots.

[Anonymous No.9926550]

>>9925886
>Some people are starving, homeless and dying of curable diseases and other people are expending thousand of dollars in gold-covered chicken wings
Where is it written that this is a bad thing? It's just your moral, if i had access to this kind of AI i would use it to increase my power, without caring about other people. And i'm pretty sure those who are financing research (governments and private investors) think the same.

[Anonymous No.9926646]

>>9925846
Freedom hating commies please kill yourselves.

[Anonymous No.9926752]

>>9926646
>>9926423
Nice, you sure showed him boys!

>>9926527
That's not very efficient when you can manipulate people's wants with advertising that appeals to our irrational minds. That's how you end up buying shit that you don't need.

I don't see why a complex algorithm wouldn't be better. Got a new product? Data will tell you most of what you need to know. It's not like big companies don't do that already: before releasing a new product companies have to research how much demand it might have. They already use complex statistical methods that rely on previous data, i.e. Monte Carlo method. If data is truly non-existent for that kind of product, sure, more research needs to be done, i.e. you'd have to create a dataset from the ground up. But again, that's what companies already do.

So it's not like in planned economies demand isn't your indicator anymore. I'd say it still is. BUT the point is that since the profit motive isn't there anymore, you won't need to expend ridiculous amount of resources into creating 'artifiical demand' for your product (i.e. running marketing campaigns). You'd just have to settle with the demand that the data tells you you'd have. And that has the potential of being incredibly efficient.

[Anonymous No.9926775]

Based thread. Obligatory read for this discussion:

>Big Data, Platform Economy and Market Competition: A Preliminary Construction of Plan-Oriented Market Economy System in the Information Era (2017) Binbin Wang and Xiaoyan Li, World Review of Political Economy, Vol. 8, No. 2 (Summer 2017), pp. 138-161

>DOI: 10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.8.2.0138

[Anonymous No.9926778]

>>9925846
>Do you think machine learning and big data will shift the neoliberal mindset in the West towards acceptance of socialism once the first full-data-and-AI driven economies become a success?
No, because that's a ridiculous idea. Corporations are already "centrally planned." Their increased mastery of big data and planning algorithms will help them profit/compete still as private enterprises with absentee owners. Seeing how well Nike can optimize its supply chain won't make them turn over the means of production to the workers.

Do I think a planned economy can be run efficiently with these methods? Yes. Do I think the existence of these methods under capitalism is likely to bring about socialism? No.
Advanced planning algorithms are really just another mean of production, bucko

[Anonymous No.9927139]

fuckuign nigger normies in this thread im gonna murder you all im the only one who understands ai and ill be the only human alive in fourty years

[Anonymous No.9927186]

>>9925886
What if AI determined that people are homeless because of mental illness/drugs and the only to "fix" this is by killing them or locking them up?

[Anonymous No.9927231]

>>9926778

Technology made the means of production gets gradually smaller and smaller over time. If the centralized structure fails within a socialist environment, chaos is sure to happen.

[Anonymous No.9927250]

>>9925846
>Cockshott

[Anonymous No.9927255]

>>9925886
>Some people are starving, homeless and dying of curable diseases and other people are expending thousand of dollars in gold-covered chicken wings.
nothing wrong with that. inequality is the nature of life. trying to force equality of outcome artificially will lead only to death, suffering, and despair for everyone involved (and likely also the enrichment of those sociopathic and greedy enough to take advantage of the situation at the expense of everyone else, as has happened by bureaucrats in every communist/socialist country throughout history)

[Anonymous No.9927260]

>>9925886
>Also consider that you already are giving up free will and placing all your faith on the market.
you're acting like the market isn't dictated by the actions of individuals and groups. markets don't move on their own. if you knew some basic economics we could have avoided this pointless thread.
t. phd financial mathematician

[Anonymous No.9927264]

>>9926752
>Nice, you sure showed him boys!
and you sure showed everyone else in this thread by selectively ignoring posts and only replying when you think you'll look clever
hint: no one knows who you are and no one really gives a shit about you or your shitty ideas

[Anonymous No.9927324]

>>9927255
[Citation needed] Also, "Nature of life" is a non-argument.

>>9927186
You've read too much science fiction friend. This is not a discussion on implementing an all powerful AI. Machine learning is just math.

>>9927260
In all practical situations an individual has literally no impact on the market. That's why veganism (or ethical consumption in general) is dumb. You're saying we, as individuals,, somehow have free will economically because WE can affect the market! No, virtually, as individuals, we don't. Mega-coporations and governments can, obviously, but I would call government/corpotation control over the market "individual free will".

>>9927264
I don't want to show nothing to no one. I just wanted to generate discussion. Why so hostile? Also I don't want recognition for my ideas, as I said I'm a simple electrical engineer student, not some "clever" PhD in Economics guy. So much projecting on this post.

[Anonymous No.9927328]

>>9927324
>but I would call
I meant wouldn't call

[Anonymous No.9927340]

>>9925846
machine learning is way behind what investors think it is and it's not going to be a unique opportunity for anyone other than the researchers who can't even make an accurate working model of a rat's brain with literally all of Europe's funding

[Anonymous No.9927356]

>socialism
Why do idiots insist on having loud and vociferous opinions on economic subjects while remaining in a state of ignorance and knowing nothing about economics?

[Anonymous No.9927359]

>>9925846
>>>/pol/ (all your posts stink of underage retard)

[Anonymous No.9927360]

>g-g-guys I know socialism fails every time but with m-m-muh AI I'm SURE we can make it work
>r-r-right guys? guys?
>>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.9927364]

>>9925846
>Also, just so we're all clear and on the same page, when I say 'socialism' I mean that the workers own the companies they work at. Machine learning and big data is what would be what tells the workers what's needed, where and how much.
So... The workers don't actually own anything and just obey orders set by the central planning machine....

[Anonymous No.9927405]

>>9927356
>>9927359
>>9927360
Not an argument.

>>9927364
They still own the company because they get the full reward for their labour. Not like in capitalism where the people that own the company don't even work there and just leech off workers' wages.

"Obey orders set by central planning machine" is just a sinister way of saying that workers will produce what society *truly* needs.

How about we say that today's workers "obey orders set by the profit-seeking private industrial-complex war-machine". Sounds awful right? but that's literally what capitalism is. Just profit seeking that benefit a small group of individuals. I just wordered it in a more sinister way.

[Anonymous No.9927426]

>>9927356

same reason why flat Earth idiots exist, socialists are the flat Earthers of economics

Dunning–Kruger in action

[Anonymous No.9927490]

>>9925846
>Do you think machine learning and big data will shift the neoliberal mindset in the West towards acceptance of socialism once the first full-data-and-AI driven economies become a success? China could very well be the first one of them.
Success of anything necessitates acceptance of it and/or competition with it. The neoliberal mindset will struggle and die if this hypothetical system is successful.

[Anonymous No.9927521]

>>9925846
I have actually looked into this in depth. The base problem is that the information required for the running of an economy, the preferences of individuals, is not ex ante available for data collection, it is generated at each moment as individuals make decisions for themselves. It is thus not possible for a theoretical intelligence to make decisions that will suit the preferences of the public. Furthermore, the computational complexity of processing and decision making on this data is likely intractable, even with our current level of computation power. Finally, the power structure of this system is unstable in the inevitable situation that tyranny arises, with no checks or balances that prevent the ruling class from imposing their order on the citizenry, which historically has led to mass murder.

Although I for one can appreciate the methods used by Beer during Allende's regime, for it is an admirable means of implementing socialism, I cannot see this replacing a market regime for the reasons outlined above. However, as means of collecting and acting on data on a societal basis it could work, perhaps for the scale of issues that markets are incapable of properly addressing, such as climate change, although that's speculative.

[Anonymous No.9927738]

>>9925846
>professor P. Cockshott
kek

[Anonymous No.9927742]

>>9926527
>the demand that somewhat reveals the wants and preferences of people.
Networks exist that can predict those, I think they're getting pretty reliable now too.

[Anonymous No.9927746]

>>9927255
>nothing wrong with that. inequality is the nature of life. trying to force equality of outcome artificially will lead only to death, suffering, and despair for everyone involved (and likely also the enrichment of those sociopathic and greedy enough to take advantage of the situation at the expense of everyone else, as has happened by bureaucrats in every communist/socialist country throughout history)
All of this is true under capitalism as well, though.

[Anonymous No.9927762]

>>9925846
There are people working toward this right now---the founder of the AI club on my campus is a socialist---but I think full socialism isn't necessary nor desirable. Socialism vs capitalism is a false dichotomy. If we assume there are more than enough resources to go around, which is another discussion altogether, then AI could be used to allocate government resources more efficiently. You keep the system we have now, which properly incentivizes work and innovation, while tightening the social safety net to ensure no one has to go hungry for wont of health, motivation, or intellect.
But first we'd have to remind the public that Keynesianism is not authoritarian communism, and no one is really pushing that.

[Anonymous No.9927764]

If anything could do it, it would be some kind of overmind

[Anonymous No.9927765]

>>9927260
>Equality is a false god
Nature is something to rise above, not something to be mired in for eternity

[Anonymous No.9927779]

>>9927405
it may not be an argument but you are still an underage retard

[Anonymous No.9928204]

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7887

[Anonymous No.9928248]

>>9927746
of course it is. the difference is the freedom for (or potential for) choice in unplanned economies due to their unplanned nature (which is not to say that government intervention is always bad or not sometimes necessary)

[Anonymous No.9928250]

>>9927765
equality being a false god has roots in nature but is not justified by nature. it can be justified without appeal to nature.

[Anonymous No.9928257]

>>9927405
>They still own the company because they get the full reward for their labour.
Really? So they'll be told what to produce, but they keep the produce or what? How would that work?

How would you deal with the fact that different industries have different profit margins? Oil rig workers would probably make a hell lot more than, say, supermarket cashiers. Oh and by the way what do supermarket cashiers produce exactly?

Have you thought this through?

>How about we say that today's workers "obey orders set by the profit-seeking private industrial-complex war-machine". Sounds awful right?
Not really. At least in a capitalist economy you can choose to quit your job if you don't like it, unlike a planned economy.

Did you in the USSR you didn't even choose where you lived? There was a lottery after you graduated from college and if you were out of luck you'd be assigned to a city in bumfuck nowhere.

[Anonymous No.9928260]

>>9925846
Any serious discussion concerning sustainable economic systems should incorporate what we know about psychometrics, behavioral genetics and eugenics, which are all viewed as "bad" by socialists, which is why this fantasy of an ideology will always remain a farce.

[Anonymous No.9928283]

>>9927186
What if it determined that it was far cheaper to rehabilitate? By locking someone up, you lose human capital(ability to work), you risk productivity loses(amount of work drops), taxes increase(you have to pay someone to constantly repress someone), and at a more fundamental level you remove freedom. With the amount of drugs out there, it is possible to make some of them useful again. The real problem is of course the time spent without being functional. That's not to say you can't but if you spend ~5 years doing a good job you might get some ~15 years out of that. Heck, you might even make them repay their own treatment(an leave some kind of deposit for possible future problems). AI can look at that through Sociology data.

[Anonymous No.9928288]

>>9927521
But look at the Bell Curve. The Bell Curve says you will be off by any given amount at any given time as long as that distribution is correct. Statistics has wonderfully explored this already and has come to the conclusion that you can in fact predict certain variables, with a given margin of error. Machine Learning scales up these statistical methods to get a state of the art model.

[Anonymous No.9928293]

>>9928257
>Have you thought this through?

Well, there's no need for that since all of those concerns have been answered over a hundreds of years ago. There's this little book, you might have heard about it, called Das Kapital, that I'm certain will aleviate your doubts on what would workers receive. In short, you would receive something that is proportional to how hard the work you're doing is, how efficient you are at it and how much time you spent working. Also if you work less efficiently than the average worker you would be penalized, if you work more efficiently than the average you would be rewarded. Cooking a mudpie is not a counterargument. If you're a cashier you might not receive much because it's unskilled work and you don't work that hard. Also what do doctors produce? Producing a physical object isn't the only kind of labour.

You may point out a lot of awful things about the USSR's system, but you have to remember that it's just one instance. Not all planned economies have to necessarily do what the USSR did, especially what it did wrong.

>>9928260
>any serious discussion [...] should incorporate [...] physchometrics, behavioral genetics and eugenics

And yet you provide no evidence or argument as to why should this be the case.

[Anonymous No.9928335]

>>9925846
>socialism will work this time

No it won't, you haven't provided a foolproof, many-times redundant, and overwhelmingly absolute method of removing the idealistic, ''intellectual'' college students, who often think they will be the creators/builders/leaders of any socialist movements, from their positions of power once they finish implementing the system.

You haven't even begun to consider how you're going to persuade multi-billion dollar executives, their lobbyists, and the politicians in their pockets to give up control of their companies unless you give them an AI system which benefits them even more (at the expense of workers!) or use violence.

AI-driven systems will no doubt make the market more efficient but you are tragically deluded into thinking AI-driven systems will somehow fix human nature and the desire to have more and control others- or worse, that you think you are smart and moral enough to create and be at the helm of a system that can affect human nature.

You asked,

>Why aren't you personally rooting for data/AI-driven socialism?

My answer is the data/AI will be directed by humans to some degree. These humans will never be long-lived, moral, or humble enough to be trusted with control over others. This is why socialism always fails spectacularly or ends in rotting socialist hellholes or corrupt nightmares like Russia or China. This is incidentally why in capitalism large corporations and governments will always succumb to some level of corruption.

>And yet you provide no evidence or argument as to why should this be the case.

That was an incredibly poor, ignorant and almost arrogant response to anon's point. How would you implement utopia on the masses without requiring psychometrics, behavioural genetics, genetics and many other fields outside AI and data?

Take a lesson from Mao and trudge in the mud and dirt for years, so at least you can say you know a little about the end consequences of your college student ideas.

[Anonymous No.9928361]

>>9928293

>In short, you would receive something that is proportional to how hard the work you're doing is, how efficient you are at it and how much time you spent working.

Such system will collapse due to rampant inefficiency. Back in the real world, the true "worth" of someones labor is not determined by their effort or efficiency, but only by how much other people value their actual results. And you cannot centrally plan the preferences of the people, no matter how much buzzwords you throw at it, because the issue is not in lack of computational power or insufficient models, but in the fact that you cannot read the minds of all the humans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

Invisible hand of the market is by far the best "central planner".

[Anonymous No.9928400]

>>9928335
There's no scientific evidence for such thing as "human nature". And the little clues we have on the matter tells us that we're altruistic as fuck, like on a biological level. Our brains are literally wired for bonding and caring. The egoistic nature we humans seem to have is just false consciousness. Things like nationalism, racism or obscene amounts of wealth hoarding, egoism, etc. are the consecuences of thousands of years of hierarchy and wealth inequality, capitalism being the ultimate conclusion.
You seem to forget the part where everything is controlled by humans right now. Also you it could be possible to imomement the central panning systems that couldn't be exploited by just a few, just to name a few examples, you can introduce full transparency, open source code, participatory instances. We're smart, we'll figure out ways to destribute control as much as possible. Contrast all of this to today's system, where the market economy is controlled by a few mega-coporations.
I truly don't see why would any of those fields be relevant to the socialist project. I wasn't trying to be arrogant.

>>9928361
Yeah, because capitalism hasn't ever collapsed.
In the current system you can get money without doing anything. Like literally, if you have enought money you can just buy an extra house and leech off from the renters' work. So, tell me, how is that more efficient than getting truly what you're putting into? Than not getting anything unless you *truly* work? How is having literal leeches in your economy more efficient? The 2008 crisis already showed us that it is not, and the current housing bubble will soon pop and maybe it'll remind you how efficient capitalism truly is.
Also you don't need to read every single human mind to make fairly accurate economic predictions, that's what statistical methods are for. Just like you don't need to know the position and momentum of every particule in a gas to know how much it will or won't increase it's temperature.

[Anonymous No.9928406]

>>9928361
I think you are misinterpreting the dilemma. You have an end goal. That end goal might be worth something. Your labor is worth something too. The difference in values between you(the owner) and the utility(the ability to be useful in a general context) is the economic calculation. Your statements are fallacious in that labor does have a price. Inefficiency is a measure of how much you can produce vs what is actually produced. So you are saying that people will intentionally work harder to produce th same results? That is inefficiency? That is why putting a price on labor is always key to efficiency. That is why CEOs get paid a lot while the workers get paid dirt. CEOs have the power to make a ton of profits or nothing at all. Workers can only produce so much.

[Anonymous No.9928416]

>>9928400
>There's no scientific evidence for such thing as "human nature".
There's plenty. Read a biology textbook you fucking loon.

[Anonymous No.9928417]

>>9928406
>it's a clueless blowhard thinks he understand something better than the experts in the field episode
Once again, go back to >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.9928422]

>>9928400

>Yeah, because capitalism hasn't ever collapsed.

Nope. Capitalism is still going strong, with millions of people rising out of poveryt as we speak, and contrary to what delusional socialists think, it is only getting started. Capitalist innovation will be what will bring us the technological singularity (assuming it happens).

>In the current system you can get money without doing anything.

That is correct, and the fact that you have a problem with this only shows your delusion. A good economic system incentivizes satisfying as many people as possible while doing as small amount of work as possible.

We should all strive to be leeches. It is the key to progress and efficiency.

[Anonymous No.9928423]

>>9928406

>In the current system you can get money without doing anything.

Nope, they are doing something. You subjectively do not value such work but other people do, otherwise they would not get any money.

[Anonymous No.9928424]

>>9925886
>The only way to have free will is to implement an economic system that ensures the people's basic necessities are met. That's the basis for free will, the literal minimum.

No, because truly free will cannot exist within the framework of a predetermined system. The only way to be truly free is to be free of all hierarchies and systems. To rid our conscious and subconscious minds of the metanarrative tropes that define us. You are not the father, you are not the mother, the trickster, you are member of no nation, cog in no machine, beholden to nothing but your own mind.

That is free will.

[Anonymous No.9928425]

>>9925886

>The only way to have free will is to implement an economic system that ensures the people's basic necessities are met.

Welfare capitalism is still capitalism. You do not need to abolish capitalism to have things like universal health coverage or welfare. In fact one could argue that capitalist wealth creation is a necessary prerequisite to even be able to afford such luxuries such as a welfare state.

[Anonymous No.9928431]

>>9925846
controllability in a complex adaptive system the size of an economy is a pipe dream, the information is not there to learn or otherwise statistically infer. anyone who does this will delude themselves almost-patterns are forever-patterns, then they will wreck the place when the system changes. people have already thrown advanced statistics, machine learning and big computers at tiny subsets of the economy and failed. the information just is not there, it cannot be predicted or controlled in a consistent way.

also, this sort of top down optimisation leads to sensitivity to measurement error.

go read any baby book on nonlinear dynamics and/or complex systems please! dont be a sap that thinks they can save/control the world with (never enough) mathematics. learn the full story.

[Anonymous No.9928433]

>>9928288
holy shit man. yeah, if they're independent variables and if you have enough of them.

variables in the economy ARE NOT INDEPENDENT.

read more statistics please.

[Anonymous No.9928452]

>>9928417
Are you implying that you are an expert? Because you can paraphrase but still be wrong. Labor is generally key to any part of any economy so far. Somebody has to work, and those that hold capital don't labor still have to do some labor . it
s not like they can just rent a property perpetually without worrying about upkeep costs.
>>9928423
That is my exact interpretation, somebody is always doing work, how efficient(money returned vs time spent) is not to be confused for lack of doing work. So a guy renting out a skyscraper might reap in millions in profits after all those costs but certainly pays someone to help run it and in the end goal there are certain realizations that must be made, whether through a property manager, accountant, etc is a mask for the efficiency of the owner.

[Anonymous No.9928483]

>>9928433
I am not making a generalization her. Of course the Bell Curve isn't enough but it's just one example at how it is in fact possible to predict certain variables. Can you predict the price of a bottle of Coke tomorrow given the price it was today? Sure you can. The same can be said of the price of many stock prices, many commodities, etc. All within a margin of error.

[Anonymous No.9928484]

>>9925846 >>9927250
>Professor Cockshott
Professor Cock-Shot

[Anonymous No.9928497]

>>9928483
and the margin of error rapidly approaches infinity over time, and the payoff for predicting stocks that way is sensitive to errors in prediction. people get wiped out that way.

the bell curve is not only not general, it is the one and only special stable distribution that has things fall in line. the real world is not gaussian. when you get into the other stable distribution you started seeing undefined mean and variance, thus law of large numbers fails. complex adaptive systems operate far from equilibrium, so there are no persistent patterns, no reliable statistics to make predictions from.

youre trading pre-statistical ground that was trod many centuries ago. a lot more has been discovered since then. look up nonlinear dynamics, chaos, and complex adaptive systems.

[Anonymous No.9928504]

>>9928483
machine learning algorithms make assumptions about the underlying statistics of the process they are learning. the big assumption is that the signal is regular enough so that a relatively small sample can provide all the statistics a learning model needs to make statistically significant predictions, i.e. that the information describing (to a statistically significant degree) the entire process can be compressed (yes, this is information entropy).

when the underlying process cannot be compressed this way, because there is too much information driving the process for a finite sample to possess the required statistics, machine learning does not work - this is the mathematical truth of it, this is statistics, this is information theory.

look at a simple chaotic function, like the angles of the double pendulum in a chaotic mode. get a machine learning algorithm to predict that chaotic pendulum a minute down the line (or an otherwise significant lyapunov time). protip: its not possible, and this is only a simple, 2 parameter deterministic system! how many parameters does the economy have? on top of huge dimensionality, its adaptive and operates far from equilibrium

[Anonymous No.9928506]

>>9927324
>In all practical situations an individual has literally no impact on the market. That's why veganism (or ethical consumption in general) is dumb. You're saying we, as individuals,, somehow have free will economically because WE can affect the market! No, virtually, as individuals, we don't.
Are you sure about that: http://www.onlinebusinessdegree.org/2012/08/26/6-business-boycotts-that-actually-worked/?

[Anonymous No.9928508]

>>9927490
>The neoliberal mindset will struggle and die if this hypothetical system is successful.
"Communism wasn't able to kill capitalism before, but this time it will work. And I promises no purges."

[Anonymous No.9928589]

>>9928400
>There's no scientific evidence for such thing as "human nature"

are you trolling us? Read any textbook on human behaviour.

>the little clues we have on the matter tells us that we're altruistic as fuck

Human history has repeatedly shown human nature ruins socialism by way of totalitarian dictators, cronyism, and eventual mass corruption. We don't just have little clues we have large piles of irrefutable evidence on this.

>You seem to forget the part where everything is controlled by humans right now.

You are missing the point. Of course everything is and will still be controlled by humans, but unless you change how humans act, new technology will make no difference. Different systems of governance will. Socialism as a form of governance has always failed. Whether you bring in AI/data technology will make no difference as you are not changing the form of governance, just how socialism is carried out.

>We're smart, we'll figure out ways to destribute control as much as possible

Yes you're smart, and history has shown smart people like you will create power and never share it once attained if given the chance. Stalin, Putin, Mao, Pol-pot, the CCCP, and every western capitalist businessman. Unsurprisingly, you've also dodged my question on how you are going to ensure the '''''intellectual'''''''' leaders/creators/builders of a new socialist system will also implement a foolproof method of their complete self-removal once they finish putting their socialist system in place.

>I truly don't see why would any of those fields be relevant to the socialist project. I wasn't trying to be arrogant.

I am the worker you'd like to help (subjugate) and I'm telling you to stop. I'm also telling you it's ok to realize and accept that you're not a person suited for ruling over others or coming up with ways to rule over others. That is funnily enough a great first step for you to understand human nature, if you can achieve it.

[Anonymous No.9928637]

>>9928589
>Socialism as a form of governance has always failed.

But often forced from outside, for example with Allende.
We don´t know how it would have turned out whitout CIA intervention.

It is basically prisoners dilemma, where capitalism plays "defect" and socialism plays "cooperate".

[Anonymous No.9928680]

HOLY FUCK
Im a brainlet
Please somebody summarize this thread

[Anonymous No.9928694]

>>9928680
Retarded socialist thinks this time socialism will work because MUH COMPUTERS.

[Anonymous No.9928780]

>>9928422
>good economic system incentivizes satisfying as many people as possible while doing as small amount of work as possible

That's why capitalism sucks. Capitalism will collapse with the advent of automation. Meanwhile in socialism it would be a good thing because you'd have to work less for the same pay.

>>9928423
No, you could literally do nothing and pay someone else to do everything for you. You profit from rent not because people value what you do, but because people has literally no other option other than live in the fucking street.

>>9928424
Well at least you admit there's no such thing as free will in our current system.

>>9928425
Yes you do need to abolish capitalism if you want all humans in this planet to have those things. The only reason welfare capitalism seems to work in places like Norway or Canada is because of cheap labour from the third world.

>>9928431
Thanks, I do need to study those things.

>>9928589
That the attempt of implementating socialism in certain places ends up with totalitarian governments doesn't disprove socialism nor it says anything about human nature. History is too complex to blame what happened on human nature, or in a single individuals, or in the economic system they tried to implement. I'd say , to prevent those things of happening again, that the socialist project has to have some kind of system that prevents individuals from obtaining full power.

>how to ensure builders of new socialist system [...] their complete self-removal

There'd be a shitton of builders, you just ensure no one is over others in terms of power and give people the chance of democratically making decisions, so when the technocrats are not needed anymore, people can kick them out democratically. I truly don't get why you think individuals will rule over others in socialism. That's not the idea of socialism, workers should be over the technocrats in terms of decision making, and technocrats would do everything in favor of workers.

[Anonymous No.9928815]

>>9928780
>this whole post

[Anonymous No.9928983]

Americans are fucking insane.

[Anonymous No.9928986]

>>9928694
Braindead conservatives should return to their caves and not go around bothering people.

[Anonymous No.9929003]

>>9928452
>being this much of a bootlicker

[Anonymous No.9929012]

>>9928780

>The only reason welfare capitalism seems to work in places like Norway or Canada is because of cheap labour from the third world.

Bullshit. Third world provides nothing critical to the global economic output. You wanted to say Second world.

And it is a mutually beneficial relationship, as countries like China are developing greatly due to all the factories the capitalists established over there. In fact soon they will be able to afford their own welfare state institutions.

[Anonymous No.9929023]

>>9928780

>No, you could literally do nothing and pay someone else to do everything for you.

Investment and delayed consumption is work, too. Some of the most beneficial work in the economy. Learn basic economics, please. You are not qualified to have opinion on the matter.

[Anonymous No.9929039]

>>9929023
>investment is work

Lolwhut

[Anonymous No.9929064]

>>9925870
Unironically the future as foretold in the Book of Revelation
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2017/04/04/some-swedish-workers-are-getting-microchips-implanted-in-their-hands/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.08cb55a1ae6c

Everything is converging; the devil deceived.

[Anonymous No.9929067]

>>9927255
What they are trying to do is create heaven on earth. A return to the Garden of Eden in a thier self-deluded Godless world.
They worship the creation instead of the creator. Relativism was a mistake.

[Anonymous No.9929070]

>>9929064
I think you're free to believe that human microchips are a bad idea, but you lose me when you expect me to believe that it's part of a conspiracy to make you accept the mark of the beast, that part never made any sense to me.

[Anonymous No.9929077]

>>9929070
That won;t be the mark of the beast probably, maybe a e-tatoo.
If the whole world went cashless, and the chip was considered a form of payment(credit card on a chip system for example), if the goverment decided to lock your system from making purchases because of hate speech ro whatever.; you wouldn't be able to eat.
>15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+13&version=KJV

[Anonymous No.9929079]

>>9928983
>Existential Comics
>that commie scum
But why?

[Anonymous No.9929093]

>>9928283
what if it would be far cheaper to force it to perform work whilst providing it with whatever drug he wants and then kill him when his body has become too weak to carry on? That would seem like the most obvious and cheapest way to get 20 productive years from some useless hobo
rehabilitation will not improve his productivity and will not entice him to perform work for the one who just stole away his drugs.

[Anonymous No.9929101]

>>9928986
I'm not a conservative.

[Anonymous No.9929102]

>>9929039
>labor has to be hard in order to be labor
communists aren't known for their critical thinking skills i guess

[Anonymous No.9929121]

>>9925846
>> ''I'm a simple electrical engineer student''

Dear God.. Give me a fucking break.. OP, you clearly know jack shit about math, machine learning, and economics. If you had even the slightest clue, you'd realize that mathematics pervades every aspect of the economy that it can, and even when using cutting edge knowledge and subject-matter expertise, it doesn't always perform well.

You clearly do not understand the scope of the retarded fucking statement you just made.

If you want to add any benefit to anything in this world, do yourself a favor and study pure math through at least a typical master's level sequence-- not machine learning, not statistics, MATH --then statistics, and, if you so choose, economics as an area to specialize in, separately, and tell me how feasible your idea sounds. That shit isn't happening any time soon, nor would I fucking trust it.

[Anonymous No.9929139]

>>9927324
>>9927255
I also don't know why he comes up with the "nature of life" as if the current economy was something natural.

What one can deduct from the current economic principles is the necessity of inequality as a result of these principles. Hence, this inequality is an artificial outcome put into action via current economic principles. Changing these principles such that equal access to nature to fulfill desires is guaranteed, is a great idea

[Anonymous No.9929267]

>>9929121
>lol you can't discuss relevant economic topics on a basket-waving vietnamese forum without having two Math PhDs and a Master in Economics first

[Anonymous No.9929307]

>>9929267
You certainly need to not be an ignorant moron, a low bar that you don't seem able to cross.

[Anonymous No.9929310]

>>9929139
Inequality has nothing to do with economic policy. Until humans are just a bunch of clones of each other, it will always exist.

[Anonymous No.9929313]

>>9929307
And yet you are the one throwing insults without being provoked... Curious to say the least.

[Anonymous No.9929477]

>>9929267
How is automatiting global economies a relevant topic? I think the point here isn't that this can't be discussed without having the credentials, but that OP is looking to accomplish an absurd goal not by understanding the systems he/she seeks to improve, but by getting a 'machine learning' degree and applying a few bread and butter algorithms to some of the world's most challenging problems.

Machine learning is a meme...

[Anonymous No.9929708]

>>9928293
>Not all planned economies have to necessarily do what the USSR did, especially what it did wrong.
Ah, yes... how could one forget the other shining exemplars.

[Anonymous No.9929721]

>>9928780
>That's why capitalism sucks. Capitalism will collapse with the advent of automation. Meanwhile in socialism it would be a good thing because you'd have to work less for the same pay.
This must be bait.

[Anonymous No.9929724]

>>9928680
Basically this >>9928694

[Anonymous No.9929738]

>>9928680
>>9928815

[Anonymous No.9929761]

>>9929721
Why and how would a true statement be bait?

>>9929708
That's not an argument though.

>>9929724
>>9929738
>>9928694
You forgot to mention the idiots that only come here to spew out insults and not generate meaningful discussion.

>>9929477
How is automation of global NOT a relevant topic? Just look at China, they are embracing big data and will soon become the 1st world power.

[Anonymous No.9929771]

>>9929761
No meaningful discussion can be had. You're a stupid ignoramus.

[Anonymous No.9929801]

>>9929761
It's not a true statement.

[Anonymous No.9929808]

>>9929761
>irrefutable empirical evidence of socialism's countless failures is not an argument

[Anonymous No.9929816]

>>9925846
>Machine learning

No such thing.

[Anonymous No.9929831]

>>9929801
Still doesn't explain how is it bait. You could argue why you think it's not true. Saying "lol bait" is just lazy.

>>9929808
When you actively sabotage something because is against your interests and the such thing doesn't do well, that fact it's not empirical evidence of such thing not working. That's why experimentse done unperturbed, because you don't want external variables to shit your results up. As you can't do an experiment with an economic system, failed attempt's at an economic system aren't proof of it not being able to function.

[Anonymous No.9929839]

>>9929831
Don't waste time arguing with the /pol/tard immigrants. They came here to shit the board up so they could "redpill" us. Pretending they have the capacity for complex thought just helps them to shit things up even more.

[Anonymous No.9929901]

>>9929831
>When you actively sabotage something because is against your interests and the such thing doesn't do well, that fact it's not empirical evidence of such thing not working.
Ah, right. I forgot that the CIA orchestrated the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, the Red Terror, the Cambodian genocide, the Yezhovshchina, Holodomor, the man-made famines, the gulags, the killing fields, the forced collectivizations, the mass executions... Of course those things couldn't have originated from socialism. What a silly idea!

[Anonymous No.9930337]

>>9928248
People should disclose their assets before they make comments like this. It would really help to know what exactly you're defending.

[Anonymous No.9930342]

>>9928250
Then what's holding me back from fucking destroying you asshole? The answer is... Some sense of equality. I'm playing by the rules. You aren't. Fuck you.

[Anonymous No.9930353]

>>9929901
Gulags had the same % of the population as US prisons do now. And their political prisoners were like 10-15% of the population, the rest were normal criminals. Which is reasonable when you consider many were legit trying to overthrow the country. And hey, how about you start listing off genocides in 3rd world capitalist countries? Thousands of people died building New York's subways. You think matching 200 years of industrial development in 2 decades isn't going to kill lots of people in those 5 year plans during the 1920s/30s? tldr: Fuck you cunt.

[Anonymous No.9930355]

>>9929901
Ever wonder why the North Koreans hate the US so much? Oh maybe it was because we wiped out a third of their population in Korea.

[Anonymous No.9930745]

>Do you think I'll need a PhD for this task? Any encouragement/discouragement is welcomed

No, you do not need a piece of paper or a number to tell you what you can and cannot do. You just need to get started on your dreams. That being said a PhD offers you a lot of focused time and brain resources to talk with so it has some value. What you will find is your knowledge is severely lacking. There are very smart people in this field who already contribute more per day in the ML field then you did in the last 20 years. If your IQ is lower than 140 you are better off finding an ML team to join. After all, 10 125 IQs can do more than a single 150 IQer.

[Anonymous No.9930785]

Not OP, but bumping for interest.

[Anonymous No.9930788]

>>9927426
>same reason why flat Earth idiots exist, socialists are the flat Earthers of economics

>Dunning–Kruger in action

Explains why that dumbass Einstein wrote an entire paper explaining why socialism would be a desired economic system, right mate?
Modern economics is akin to alchemy in its scientific rigor. It's not an empirical science, and it's based on the presupposed opinions of an outdated school of thought.

https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/

[Anonymous No.9930796]

>>9928694
>Retarded socialist thinks this time socialism will work because MUH COMPUTERS.

This is the case, essentially. Socialism will work because of computers. Now, computers have enough computational power to plan an entire economy of a big country in real time, in a highly efficient manner. This wasn't the case before.

People like Da Vinci tried to invent airplanes before proper engines existed, and this is why they failed. When engines were invented, airplanes worked.

[Anonymous No.9930802]

>>9930353
>Which is reasonable when you consider many were legit trying to overthrow the country.
Let's see an example of that: "And what accomplished villains these old engineers were! What diabolical ways to sabotage they found! Nikolai Karlovich von Meck, of the People's Commissariat of Railroads, pretended to be terribly devoted to the development of the new economy, and would hold forth for hours on end about the economic problems involved in the construction of socialism, and he loved to give advice. One such pernicious piece of advice was to increase the size of freight trains and not worry about heavier than average loads. The GPU exposed von Meck, and he was shot: his objective had been to wear out rails and roadbeds, freight cars and locomotives, so as to leave the Republic without railroads in case of foreign military intervention! When, not long afterward, the new People's Commissar of Railroads, Comrade Kaganovich, ordered that average loads should be increased, and even doubled and tripled them (and for this . discovery received the Order of Lenin along with others of our leaders)-the malicious engineers who protested became known as limiters. They raised the outcry that this was too much, and would result in the breakdown of the rolling stock, and they were rightly shot for their lack of faith in the possibilities of socialist transport." Gulag Archipelago, part 1, chapter 2.

>Thousands of people died building New York's subways.
Did they die form exhaustion after 12 hours working 7 days a weak with only 300 g of bread and a very watered soup to eat, like in the gulag?

>isn't going to kill lots of people in those 5 year plans during the 1920s/30s
Read about the The Promparty (Industrial Party) Trial and see how good the 5 year plans were....
"And how did they dare install such powerful ventilators? They took into account the hottest summer days. Why the hottest days? So what! Let the workers sweat a little on the hottest days!". Ibidem, chapter 10.

[Anonymous No.9930806]

>>9930802
Not the person you're replying to, but the failures of totalitarian Soviet systems are no more failures of socialism than fascist dictatorships are failures of capitalism.

[Anonymous No.9930820]

>>9930806
...or the glorious capitalist state of Somalia is the failure of capitalism, for that matter.

Most globalist and banking elites are social democrats or outright socialist by the way. Considering the backlash the Trump scandal will bring about once the Trump reign ends, idiotic conservatard capitalists will not recover for a long while.

Mass immigration which will be made possible by the democrats once they get into power again will end conservatism and capitalist idiocy for good.

[Anonymous No.9930884]

>>9930353
>Which is reasonable when you consider many were legit trying to overthrow the country.
Another example: "It still remained to be proved that the Patriarch wanted to overthrow the Soviet government. And here is how it was proved:<<Propaganda is an attempt to prepare a mood preliminary to preparing a revolt in the future.>>". Ibidem, chapter 9.

>>9930806
>the failures of totalitarian Soviet systems are no more failures of socialism
He was talking about the Soviets, thus I gave information about the Soviets. As simple as that.
I agree with part of what you say: not all failures of Soviet Russia are failures of socialism, but failures of socialism created failures in Soviet Russia.

[Anonymous No.9930961]

>>9930884
>but failures of socialism created failures in Soviet Russia.

To add some symmetry to the argument: Much like failures of capitalist created failures in the glorious capitalist Zimbabwe, Nigeria and Somalia.

[Anonymous No.9930977]

>>9930961
samefag,
capitalism *

[Anonymous No.9931207]

>>9925846
>in Allende's Chile there was a project for cybernetic economic planning (pic related, main control room), but as we all know he was overthrown and the project didn't achieve it's full potential.
If your economy can't even sustain itself long enough to finish the project what makes you think it's worth achieving? Allende was an incompetent idiot pushing a stupid system and he got what was coming to him.

>I'm a simple electrical engineer student
lel
>ML is only used in the marketing segment
double lel

[Anonymous No.9931219]

>>9930961
>Zimbabwe, Nigeria and Somalia are failures of capitalism
So if they were socialist they would be better off? Do you really believe that?

[Anonymous No.9931548]

>>9930802
"archive figures strongly challenge many elements of the Gulag narrative from the more literary/memoir sources used by Conquest. They reveal that approximately 14m Soviet citizens passed through the camps with a peak population of about 2m (1953).. that sentences were often relatively short at 3-5 years..

This stands in contrast to Gulag Archipelago's picture of around 50m passing through the camps and a peak population of 12-15m. This was much more static picture of dissidents being sent to rot in Siberia for decades. This undoubtedly happened to some but Solzhenitsyn's intellectuals were not representative of the general population and their experience was not shared by all victims of the Gulag.

Hence the tendency today, which is not uniform, is to treat Solzhenitsyn's outputs as the literary and political works that they are. "

Good job quoting fiction, cunt.

[Anonymous No.9931553]

>>9930802
Most of the starvation and death in the Gulags happened during WW2. When 27 million Russians died. Fighting Nazis. Hey, if thinking the USSR was more brutal than life here, where the poor have freedom of speech but no power or platform to ever use that freedom, I 100% support your comfortable and free conscience, you fucking cunt.

[Anonymous No.9931554]

socialism failed so many times
what makes you think an AI will improve it?

[Anonymous No.9931563]

>>9930820
Yeah, that shows how far right you are when you consider international bankers socialist.

Imperialism and Colonialism are consequences of the need for new markets. In Capitalism, you need to grow faster than your rivals or you're dominated. Sure, human society is plenty depraved and maybe Somalia would have been a shithole without Capitalism, but do you really think international corporations care about 3rd world lives? No, they're looking to exploit enough resources to buy off 1st world proletariat so we don't overrun them.

[Anonymous No.9931574]

>>9931554
Cuba didn't fail. USSR lasted 70 years and only folded because they US pressured it into spending 30% on military. Most socialist countries fell because of western imperialism.

Feudalism lasted 500 years before Capitalism overtook it. Socialism will come eventually.

[Anonymous No.9931575]

>>9931574

>USSR lasted 70 years and only folded because they US pressured it into spending 30% on military.

Ahistorical BS. It fell because planned economy could not compete with Western capitalism when it comes to wealth creation or innovation at all. It actually benefited greatly from stealing technologies from the US and would have collapsed even sooner without such parasitic relationship.

[Anonymous No.9931579]

>>9931574
>Feudalism lasted 500 years before Capitalism overtook it. Socialism will come eventually.

Something will come eventually. It will not be socialism, tough, as it has no economic merit.

[Anonymous No.9931591]

>>9930788

>Explains why that dumbass Einstein wrote an entire paper explaining why socialism would be a desired economic system, right mate?

Einstein was indeed a dumbass when it comes to economics. Also he can be partially excused because this was back in the 40s and 50s, where socialism was still largely an unknown and in fact managed to crudely industrialize the USSR fairly well. Only later it became evident that it cannot progress beyond crude industry.

[Anonymous No.9931597]

>>9925846
I dont care if you want to go live in a socialist community ruled by a economic machine voluntarely, just dont mess with my property and my own personal freedom to decide not to and who to associate with
Furthermore do not in anyway give up yourn own freedoms to authority and keep the right to and the means to bail out if everything goes to shit
Many authors already advised us on that, including Orwell

[Anonymous No.9931603]

>>9931574

>Most socialist countries fell because of western imperialism.

Excuses.. If socialism was so much better compared to capitalism, they would have no problem resisting or even dominating capitalist western countries using supposedly obsolete production mode.

[Anonymous No.9931613]

>>9931603
Exactly, I dont ever get this argument that "socialism fell because US western sanctions" if it was that good it would be then that would be imposing crippling sanctions

[Anonymous No.9931650]

>>9931603
When cancer eventually kills you, I hope you admire it's lethality, which definitely translates to some greater moral value.

[Anonymous No.9931664]

>>9931575
Wealth creation by suppressing worker wages. Man, that's fucking great. Thank you. For that. Are you a small business owner? Or is your Daddy?

Do you think there wouldn't be any scientific ambition if management wasn't there to remind people to work hard or starve to death on the street?

[Anonymous No.9931688]

>>9931575
It's true that it's impossible to compete with organizations that reduce costs by suppression of worker wages. You got me there.

Sorry, what is innovation to you? Is it winning the space race? Is it modernizing an economy in 20 years? Or is it the well being of our cancerous consumer culture?

Wealth creation.. for the bottom 50% of Americans that don't own stock? For the 3rd world, which produces all your bourgeois shit?

[Anonymous No.9931700]

>>9931575
Sorry, do you actually think you're being moral with these positions? Do you think privatizing social endeavors benefits anyone but those who control that wealth? Do you think business owners are actually "job creators"? Socialism means workers owning production, not fucking oligarchs. Stop seizing the moral high ground, you don't have it.

[Anonymous No.9931714]

>>9931688
>>9931700
>implying regular people were better off and the Soviet Union was not a game played for the benefit of party officials
You are incredibly stupid and naive.

[Anonymous No.9931727]

>>9931575
I'm confused. If Amazon is the model of efficiency, then why wouldn't having Amazon, except owned by society instead of the capitalist class, be some ideal? How is that bad? Inb4 "muh bureaucrats".. because addressing that by punishing people for being corrupt and inefficient would be like the Gulag, right?

[Anonymous No.9931728]

>>9928293
>all of those concerns have been answered over a hundreds of years ago
>Das Kapital
How old are you, anon?

[Anonymous No.9931729]

>>9931700
>hey do X and I'll give you money
>"ok"
>socialists: autistic screeching
If you wanna point guns to people that enter in voluntary agreements sorry bud you are the morally bankrupt here

[Anonymous No.9931734]

>>9930796
>Now, computers have enough computational power to plan an entire economy of a big country in real time, in a highly efficient manner.
Did you just pull that out of your ass and expect us to believe it? The economy is more complex than ever before, and it gets more complex over time as technology progresses, retard.

[Anonymous No.9931739]

>>9930353
>Which is reasonable when you consider many were legit trying to overthrow the country.
Damn, didn't expect to encounter an actual tankie on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.9931742]

>>9931700
>Socialism means workers owning production, not fucking oligarchs.
>he actually believes this
You must be over 18 to post on this board.

[Anonymous No.9931743]

>>9925846
What people don't understand is that socialism will not take over through workers forcibly taking existing companies. It will take over through AI-orchestrated, decentralized autonomous organizations of workers, being much more efficient than any centralized company, which results in them outcompeting all of the privately held businesses and becoming the dominant economic force

We don't need CEOs, sufficiently advanced AI and data aggregation and analysis software can replace them completely with much more efficiency and no mistakes.

[Anonymous No.9931747]

>>9930806
The failures of totalitarian Soviet systems were caused by socialist policies. Explain how fascist dictatorships were caused by "capitalist policies," when they were explicitly opposed to capitalism?

[Anonymous No.9931749]

>>9931743
The calculation-argument btfo's all arguments based on supercomputers, and all variations.
I don't trust a robo judge would be more impartial. Either it learns, and is capable of bias, or it doesn't, and is subject to the same bias as the programmers. You may be able to mitigate this problem but likewise, you can mitigate the same problem in judges and officials.

[Anonymous No.9931757]

>>9931743
On top of this, even if the AI-DAO companies (Artificial Intelligence based Decentralized Autonomous Organizations) are -not- as efficient as the centralized companies at extracting economic wealth from the economy, the fact that they are distributed means the fruits of the organization's labor more fairly, and the workers will benefit more, so game theoretically they will choose to work there even if the organization as a whole does not extract as much wealth, because the workers will get all of the wealth that is extracted as opposed to the current system where top investors and CEOs do

[Anonymous No.9931759]

>>9931727
>I'm confused.
Yes, you are. Please explain how Amazon would exist in the first place.

[Anonymous No.9931767]

>>9931759
Amazon is a successful company because they overwork their employees on threat of being fired. It's disgusting how people value economic success above all else, and claim that regulations to protect workers limit economic success, when that economic success is built on the back of an abused workforce who often have nowhere else to go work and thus can't defend themselves from Amazon

If a company can't work in a sound, fair, ethical regulatory environment, then they aren't a successful company, they are an exploitative company.

[Anonymous No.9931838]

>>9931743
>It will take over through AI-orchestrated, decentralized autonomous organizations of workers, being much more efficient than any centralized company, which results in them outcompeting all of the privately held businesses and becoming the dominant economic force

So you'll wind up with a "co-op" AI buddy that will hand off all the benefits of a given product's manufacture to the workers. Everyone gets a decent paycheck, and moderate work week. Yay.

But they'll just be outproduced by privately owned AI factories that are designed to be more "pushy" with their workforces, awarding pay based more on merit and longer hours. Psychology 101 says all the workaholics and more economically desperate will gravitate to the latter. So...not a solution, comrade.

[Anonymous No.9931910]

>>9931767
>Amazon is a successful company because they overwork their employees on threat of being fired.

[Anonymous No.9931925]

>>9931729
In reality:

>do X and I'll give you money
>"But that money barely covers my expenses and I'll be fuckig miserable living off of it"
>look buddy I have 1000 people in the same position as you that would take Y amount less. Take it or just don't! It's your choice and this is a free country.
>"I guess I'll take it otherwise I'd literally starve"
>socialists: people shouldn't be this miserable

[Anonymous No.9931932]

>>9931742
>X is "definition of X", not Y
>lol hurr actually believing this

This how retarded you look.

[Anonymous No.9931934]

>>9931747
Yeah because privatization is sooo opposed to capitalism, am I right?

[Anonymous No.9932528]

>>9931548
>Good job quoting fiction, cunt.
Thanks to google I found where your quote comes form: Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3j2un8/is_solzhenitsyn_considered_a_reliable_source/
Therefore, I only can say: Good job quoting fiction, cunt.

>>9931553
>Most of the starvation and death in the Gulags happened during WW2.
Not that the deaths of the Belomorkanal where between 10% (official) and 200% (Solzhenitsyn) or the beginning labour force....

>if thinking the USSR was more brutal than life here, where the poor have freedom of speech but no power or platform to ever use that freedom
Like the common people had freedom of speech or power to use it in the USSR.... Remember that "Propaganda is an attempt to prepare a mood preliminary to preparing a revolt in the future." That is phrase said by the pressing judge during the The Moscow Church Trial.

[Anonymous No.9933633]

>>9931934
Privatization isn't, fascism is.

[Anonymous No.9933639]

>>9931925
>socialists: people shouldn't be this miserable
No one thinks people should be this miserable, retard. Socialists, being the uninformed brainlets that they are, just propose a cure that's worse than the disease.

[Anonymous No.9933645]

>>9930353
>And their political prisoners were like 10-15% of the population, the rest were normal criminals. Which is reasonable when you consider many were legit trying to overthrow the country.
Yeah, god forbid people try to overthrow a murderous totalitarian regime

[Anonymous No.9933672]

>>9933639
And what's your propposed cure?

Also
>[socialism is] a cure that's worse than the disease

[Citation needed]

[Anonymous No.9933919]

>>9931553
>Hey, if thinking the USSR was more brutal than life here, where the poor have freedom of speech but no power or platform to ever use that freedom, I 100% support your comfortable and free conscience, you fucking cunt.

Oh my god I have never seen such a ridiculous statement in all of my life.

[Anonymous No.9933956]

>>9928986
Oh my god you fucking retard you don't have to be conservative to think you are fucking deluded. I'm a left wing progressive for fucks sake. I don't think that the way the economy works at the moment is perfect and unfettered capitalism is the best thing ever but that doesn't mean some ridiculous Utopian view of socialism will work.

[Anonymous No.9934037]

>>9925846
>the needs of a complex society can be planned

I recognize that picture, and what happened to them, will happen to you, in due time mon ami.

[Anonymous No.9934366]

>>9926527
>>In other words markets not only decide HOW to build things, but also WHAT to build, i.e., the demand that somewhat reveals the wants and preferences of people.
Very spooky. Markets are the end result of a complicated network of human interactions but we speak and use words that give the impression that the markets are is a natural process that's external and prior to human society

[Anonymous No.9934407]

>>9931743
>>9931757

Do you even understand the words you are saying? This is pop-sci tier.

[Anonymous No.9934409]

>>9929808
>irrefutable empirical evidence of socialism's countless failures is not an argument
I can refute this statement by saying that there is a finite number of socialist failures.

[Anonymous No.9934414]

>>9931591
>where socialism was still largely an unknown
Socialism was hugely known and governments around the world were preoccupied with it in one form or another.
>Red Scare 1/2
>Latin American coups
>USSR
>1968 protests

[Anonymous No.9934437]

>>9931910
people in their warehouses wear fucking tracking wristbands

[Anonymous No.9934446]

>>9934437
Gotta do whatever it takes to earn dem papers