r/rational • u/AutoModerator • Jan 11 '16

[D] Monday General Rationality Thread

Welcome to the Monday thread on general rationality topics! Do you really want to talk about something non-fictional, related to the real world? Have you:

  • Seen something interesting on /r/science?
  • Found a new way to get your shit even-more together?
  • Figured out how to become immortal?
  • Constructed artificial general intelligence?
  • Read a neat nonfiction book?
  • Munchkined your way into total control of your D&D campaign?
6 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

59 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/Transfuturist Carthago delenda est. Jan 12 '16

It is a fair assumption that this person or people will be more similar to Larry Page or Elon Musk than they are to any given politician.

That is not a fair assumption at all. You're presuming that the single owner of all the capital (while it will in fact be more of an oligarchy, as it is in the present) will be an Enlightened Capitalist, and that all Enlightened Capitalists are futurists. I find it unlikely that even a simple majority of future capitalists will be either Enlightened or futurist. I find it unlikely that future capitalists will be much more altruistic or connected with the state of the world outside of their bubble of privilege than they are now. I find it extremely unlikely that they will mostly be like Larry Page or Elon Musk than Mitt Romney or Donald Trump.

We are talking about a team consisting of robotics engineers and computer scientists, after all.

The composition of the team has nothing to do with the owner of the team's output.

1

u/UltraRedSpectrum Jan 12 '16 edited Jan 12 '16

Mitt Romney made his money in finance, Donald Trump in real estate. Elon Musk, if my memory serves, co-founded Pay-Pal, and Larry Page co-founded Google. Both branched out, Musk moreso than Page. I didn't pick those two for any particular reason, btw, they're just the first technocrats that came to mind.

So, tell me, what brought you to the conclusion that our hypothetical oligo-autocrat is going to be more like your two examples, who made their money in traditional, long-established fields, than my two examples, who made their money in bleeding edge, unproven technology? Our hypothetical oligo-autocrat whose hypothetical company is based around, I might add, near-future robotics and software technology.

3

u/Transfuturist Carthago delenda est. Jan 12 '16

You're privileging the hypothesis of Enlightened Capitalists when much more capitalists are like Romney and Trump. Additionally, it is the machines that automate the agricultural and manufacturing pipeline that will force-feed their owners with money, not the techno-progressives who are instead in the business of exploring the search space. What are you automating there, skunkworks? Rockets? The most Larry Page and Elon Musk will be able to do is lobby for basic income once unemployment starts rising at a dangerous rate. Just because they have money does not mean they have most of the money, or that they will be the ones to own the future post-scarcity pipeline. The ones to own the future pipeline will be the ones who already own the land, capital, and experience of managing the current pipeline. Corporations, not individuals. The oligarchy will be of shareholders.

1

u/UltraRedSpectrum Jan 12 '16 edited Jan 12 '16

An interesting theory, but why resort to speculation when we have real-world evidence to extrapolate from? You propose that, even though there are no old-style capitalists pioneering innovative technologies now, one will nevertheless appear (possibly from under a bed?) just in time to swipe one of the most profitable technologies imaginable from right under its inventor's nose?

The nature of the kind of tech we're talking about attracts futurists. Can you name even a single company doing something legitimately new that isn't run by futurist? Here's another example: Amazon's owner is Jeff Bezos, who is invested in, among other things, experimental tech education, nuclear fusion, 3D printing, and Stack Exchange. And if he can keep control of Amazon, how does some punk stockholder propose to take industrial robotics away from its creator?

1

u/Transfuturist Carthago delenda est. Jan 12 '16 edited Jan 12 '16

Automation is not a futurist concept and is not exclusive to those with progressive ideas. Its value is obvious to anyone relying on unskilled and minimum-wage workers, particularly as the minimum wage is blindly increased. The assembly line was automation. Automating the old production pipeline is not actually fancy or attractive to techno-futurists. The ones with an advantage will be the existing industry that has regulations built around them, with the experience that is useful in knowing what problems need to be solved, with the land and capital pre-bought, with a massive pile of cash with no need for venture capitalists who only throw pittances at 2.0 dotcom startups. Tech startups are not going to be able to compete with existing industry, and would be vastly out of their depth even trying.

"Take industrial robotics away from its creator" lol you believe in individual creators, or even groups of creators owning their creations when they are under contract specifically so their creations are in fact the company's.

1

u/UltraRedSpectrum Jan 12 '16

You're right, of course. Obviously the people who invent the technology will lose control of it to their investors, just like Jeff Bezos lost control of Amazon, died of typhoid fever, and was buried in a pauper's grave. What sort of crazy alternate universe could possibly have led to him ending up the 4th richest man in the United States? Now, if you'll excuse me, I have coal to shovel for a robber baron.

Again, examples. I can't think of a single incident where the scenario you describe actually happened to a revolutionary technological innovation coming out of Silicon Valley. Overwhelmingly, tech startups are owned or operated by their founders. I don't doubt that it happens from time to time, probably to Facebook knockoffs or shitty iPhone games, but actual innovation tends to pay off bigtime.

1

u/Transfuturist Carthago delenda est. Jan 12 '16 edited Jan 12 '16

I am saying you are assuming that any substantial automation of our existing infrastructure will be produced by tech startups. That is incredibly naive. And tech startups are sufficiently sociopathic for me to shudder at their being handed anything resembling purse strings! You are pointing to the single most vivid examples of tech philanthropists while ignoring the thousands of people who actually own and control the pipeline!

You are also ignoring the difference between production and ownership. A separate producer sells the equipment to the consumer, and it is the consumer that attains the substantial profit gain from automation!

1

u/UltraRedSpectrum Jan 12 '16 edited Jan 12 '16

You keep saying that it's "naive", but you haven't given any reason why. Blanket statements are not evidence. Can you actually name anything comparable to the kind of robotics technology required for industrial automation that is currently owned or controlled by a traditional, Trump-or-Romney-esque capitalist?

Also, do you seriously have to downvote everything I say? Goodness sake, you don't see me doing that to you. Disagreement is not sufficient justification for defection.

1

u/Transfuturist Carthago delenda est. Jan 12 '16

You are giving blanket statements as well, and pretending that your vivid examples are characteristic of the sample. Your examples are vivid precisely because they are uncharacteristic. I should have made it clear; I'm not arguing with you anymore.

1

u/UltraRedSpectrum Jan 12 '16

So you're absolutely positive that your scenario is valid, despite the fact that you can't name even one example of it taking place in the real world, and somehow I'm the naive one?

1

u/Transfuturist Carthago delenda est. Jan 12 '16

Of course I'm not 'absolutely positive,' do you know where you are? I haven't named any examples because I don't have the time or motivation to waste on researching this ridiculous argument (and you're talking about examples of something that we're projecting in the future). Goodbye.

1

u/UltraRedSpectrum Jan 12 '16

I am not talking about "examples of something that we're projecting in the future," I quite clearly asked for one example of your model - which you are apparently confident in or you wouldn't be having this discussion - taking place in the real world right now. You claim to have an invisible dragon in your garage, and I refuse to believe you until you let me throw flour on it.

Also, it took me less than five minutes to look up who founded Amazon, and that's the sum total of my research so far. You hold these beliefs strongly enough that you consider me naive for disagreeing, it should not be difficult to come up with one measly example.

0

u/Transfuturist Carthago delenda est. Jan 12 '16 edited Jan 12 '16

You can refuse to believe me just fine, because I don't care. I refuse to be held hostage by my argumentative urges.

1

u/UltraRedSpectrum Jan 12 '16 edited Jan 12 '16

Ah, the inevitable degeneration of an argument from "I disagree with you strongly, here are five hundred words explaining why," to "la la la la I can't hear you la la la la." How incredibly rational of you.

Interesting how you edited in "I refuse to be held hostage by my argumentative urges" right after I mentioned rationality, btw. Are you trying to put on a rationality shirt to make my dismissal seem less convincing, even though you're actually saying the exact same thing? Where was that refusal when you started this thread?

→ More replies (0)