5 ms·

You're all trying to solve the wrong problem. It's not the one big server. And it's not the human institutions in the trust pathway. - It's the economic system

You're all trying to solve the wrong problem. It's not the one big server. And it's not the human institutions in the trust pathway. - It's the economic system that forces them to view you as a monetization opportunity. And destroys the principled ones who refuse. - It's the economic system that allows them power over you without your having any democratic control of that power.

ageek123 6y ago
So basically, centralization with lots of government control over the centralized entities? Decentralization sounds a lot better to me.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  There is no reason why we'd have to use purely centralized government control to fix these issues. For example, we can offset some mechanistic parts of government to decentralized systems. Or we can change ownership structures to promote cooperative modes of entreprise. We can also use decentralized systems to make government more accountable by preventing those in power from hiding their misdeeds. There is a lot that can be done to move away from markets where there is decentralization but no flexibility as the profit motive reins supreme, and centralized government that can operate arbitrarily but based on central motivations.
cle 6y ago
And yet here we are, discussing a paper by principled ones who are refusing and building systems to reclaim control of that power--and they are just a small sliver of the people working on this. The circumstances surrounding this discussion don't seem compatible with your claims.
- JulianMorrison 6y ago
  Two failure modes things can fall into, without adjusting the economic system: - The big central site that has no choice but to monetize you, because otherwise its investor funding will run out - An overly complicated and geeky system trying to recreate the efficiencies of centralisation without centralisation, and trust without trust (and generally, getting the wrong sort of trust, see Schneier). Ends up being a vicious wild west if it catches on at all, because that centralisation was doing something useful.
astrange 6y ago
> - It's the economic system that forces them to view you as a monetization opportunity. And destroys the principled ones who refuse. Trading with people makes you richer, not poorer. Not participating in the economy makes you poor because the natural state of animals is to be poor. Rent-seeking is bad, but a state where you have wealth without participating in the economy and without being exploited is extremely artificial and hard to maintain (even though it'd be cool if we got it.)
- didericis 6y ago
  > a state where you have wealth without participating in the economy I wouldn’t call that artificial nor hard to maintain: it’s axiomatically impossible. You’re participating in the economy whenever you create or receive anything of value. Even in a hypothetical scenario where you’re making absolutely everything you consume yourself from your own materials and giving it out (the complexity of which makes it impossible), there is an economy of action and resource distribution needed to make that happen. Any kind of decision making about the distribution of resources are economic decisions. This is semantics, most people here understand this, and I realize you’re making a similar point, but I’m hearing more and more casual dismissal of economic concerns as somehow separate from human concerns. The extent to which the economy does or does not effectively balance the human concerns of those participating in it is a measurement of the effectiveness of that economy. Any kind of “new economy” needs to recognized the complexity of allocating resources effectively and the hugely disparate and varied range of desires, concerns, abilities, and resources between people. The realization that free trade generally leads to greater wealth was essentially an enlightenment era realization that decentralizing decisions about resource allocation is more efficient than trying to manage all of that complexity centrally. A lot of discussion about “democratizing the economy” seems to veer towards centralized redistribution and control rather than actual decentralization and democratization.
  - astrange 6y ago
    Yep, I agree of course. If you're not "participating in the economy" then you can't be rich, and hoarding wealth usually makes it worthless. That's why Atlas Shrugged was nonsense. But you can sort of do it short term - retired people and the idle rich do exist - and a lot of people assume you can, like saying a billionaire actually has a billion USD they could give out, or thinking their employer's going to replace them with an AI.
yazaddaruvala 6y ago
“With great power comes great responsibility.” “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The problem with humans is that ego is decoupled from entropy. There were benevolent kings/dictators/CEOs, but eventually they die or they try to hold onto power for the sake of it. Either way eventually the corrupt or corrupt-able rule. If you can solve the corruptability of the ego or solve entropy, I agree with your assessment. Until then, we need deterministic rules managed by computers that cannot be corrupted, and if corrupted, it’s quickly and easily obvious to everyone. Once that (currently shaky) foundation is solved, it becomes significantly simpler (because of the durability) to solve those higher level problems over time and with technology or by changing hearts and minds, whichever is simpler.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  As a response to the failure of bureaucratic central planning in the USSR (which was done using pen and paper), some soviet researchers and mathematicians tried to find ways to eliminate the human component and develop algorithms to do it instead. Due to a confluence of Soviet bureaucrats afraid of losing their jobs and insufficient computing technology of the time, this never went that much beyond the drawing board, beyond some small-scale trials. One of them was brilliant enough to be a communist economist and win the Nobel prize in economics somehow. I don't know if that would have worked to begin with, and certainly those writers often were authoritarian in some ways, but it might interest you how they thought and reasoned about the problem and solution you described.
  - diabeticApe 6y ago
    Can you give us a link or the name of this person?
    - tremon 6y ago
      I'm going to assume it's Leonid Kantorovich; it's the only Russian on the list [1] that also worked in Russia. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Memorial_Prize_laureates_in_Economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Memorial_Prize_l...
specialist 6y ago
Yup. FWIW: I binged on David Graeber last year. You might also enjoy his works. Especially the book Debt: The First 5000 Years. I'm keen to find other authors, thinkers like Graeber. People thinking outside of the classical Liberal paradigm, outside of the Hayek vs Keynes food fight. Especially anyone thinking about participatory democracy.

ageek123 6y ago

So basically, centralization with lots of government control over the centralized entities? Decentralization sounds a lot better to me.

sudosysgen 6y ago
There is no reason why we'd have to use purely centralized government control to fix these issues. For example, we can offset some mechanistic parts of government to decentralized systems. Or we can change ownership structures to promote cooperative modes of entreprise. We can also use decentralized systems to make government more accountable by preventing those in power from hiding their misdeeds. There is a lot that can be done to move away from markets where there is decentralization but no flexibility as the profit motive reins supreme, and centralized government that can operate arbitrarily but based on central motivations.

cle 6y ago

And yet here we are, discussing a paper by principled ones who are refusing and building systems to reclaim control of that power--and they are just a small sliver of the people working on this. The circumstances surrounding this discussion don't seem compatible with your claims.

JulianMorrison 6y ago
Two failure modes things can fall into, without adjusting the economic system: - The big central site that has no choice but to monetize you, because otherwise its investor funding will run out - An overly complicated and geeky system trying to recreate the efficiencies of centralisation without centralisation, and trust without trust (and generally, getting the wrong sort of trust, see Schneier). Ends up being a vicious wild west if it catches on at all, because that centralisation was doing something useful.

astrange 6y ago

> - It's the economic system that forces them to view you as a monetization opportunity. And destroys the principled ones who refuse. Trading with people makes you richer, not poorer. Not participating in the economy makes you poor because the natural state of animals is to be poor. Rent-seeking is bad, but a state where you have wealth without participating in the economy and without being exploited is extremely artificial and hard to maintain (even though it'd be cool if we got it.)

didericis 6y ago
> a state where you have wealth without participating in the economy I wouldn’t call that artificial nor hard to maintain: it’s axiomatically impossible. You’re participating in the economy whenever you create or receive anything of value. Even in a hypothetical scenario where you’re making absolutely everything you consume yourself from your own materials and giving it out (the complexity of which makes it impossible), there is an economy of action and resource distribution needed to make that happen. Any kind of decision making about the distribution of resources are economic decisions. This is semantics, most people here understand this, and I realize you’re making a similar point, but I’m hearing more and more casual dismissal of economic concerns as somehow separate from human concerns. The extent to which the economy does or does not effectively balance the human concerns of those participating in it is a measurement of the effectiveness of that economy. Any kind of “new economy” needs to recognized the complexity of allocating resources effectively and the hugely disparate and varied range of desires, concerns, abilities, and resources between people. The realization that free trade generally leads to greater wealth was essentially an enlightenment era realization that decentralizing decisions about resource allocation is more efficient than trying to manage all of that complexity centrally. A lot of discussion about “democratizing the economy” seems to veer towards centralized redistribution and control rather than actual decentralization and democratization.
- astrange 6y ago
  Yep, I agree of course. If you're not "participating in the economy" then you can't be rich, and hoarding wealth usually makes it worthless. That's why Atlas Shrugged was nonsense. But you can sort of do it short term - retired people and the idle rich do exist - and a lot of people assume you can, like saying a billionaire actually has a billion USD they could give out, or thinking their employer's going to replace them with an AI.

yazaddaruvala 6y ago

“With great power comes great responsibility.” “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The problem with humans is that ego is decoupled from entropy. There were benevolent kings/dictators/CEOs, but eventually they die or they try to hold onto power for the sake of it. Either way eventually the corrupt or corrupt-able rule. If you can solve the corruptability of the ego or solve entropy, I agree with your assessment. Until then, we need deterministic rules managed by computers that cannot be corrupted, and if corrupted, it’s quickly and easily obvious to everyone. Once that (currently shaky) foundation is solved, it becomes significantly simpler (because of the durability) to solve those higher level problems over time and with technology or by changing hearts and minds, whichever is simpler.

sudosysgen 6y ago
As a response to the failure of bureaucratic central planning in the USSR (which was done using pen and paper), some soviet researchers and mathematicians tried to find ways to eliminate the human component and develop algorithms to do it instead. Due to a confluence of Soviet bureaucrats afraid of losing their jobs and insufficient computing technology of the time, this never went that much beyond the drawing board, beyond some small-scale trials. One of them was brilliant enough to be a communist economist and win the Nobel prize in economics somehow. I don't know if that would have worked to begin with, and certainly those writers often were authoritarian in some ways, but it might interest you how they thought and reasoned about the problem and solution you described.
- diabeticApe 6y ago
  Can you give us a link or the name of this person?
  - tremon 6y ago
    I'm going to assume it's Leonid Kantorovich; it's the only Russian on the list [1] that also worked in Russia. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Memorial_Prize_laureates_in_Economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Memorial_Prize_l...

specialist 6y ago

Yup. FWIW: I binged on David Graeber last year. You might also enjoy his works. Especially the book Debt: The First 5000 Years. I'm keen to find other authors, thinkers like Graeber. People thinking outside of the classical Liberal paradigm, outside of the Hayek vs Keynes food fight. Especially anyone thinking about participatory democracy.