3 ms·

> The value for me is derived both from the difficulty and the result. “Labor Theory of Value” vs “Marginal Utility Theory of Value”: you are familiar with the

by czl 3y ago

> The value for me is derived both from the difficulty and the result. “Labor Theory of Value” vs “Marginal Utility Theory of Value”: you are familiar with these yet you still hold that view? The output of a less efficient process to create something comparable is more valuable _because_ a less efficient process was used? > If Vermeer traced his paintings I would indeed be less impressed with his work. The excellent https://youtu.be/WPL7D0Ha1kQ https://youtu.be/WPL7D0Ha1kQ documentary presents evidence that he did use tracing. In contrast to you that evidence made me more impressed with Verneer’s work. > In the example we're discussing what is the meaningful "result" of a game of chess? I answered that. Above I said “many use costly signals (ability to play sports / games or create or acquire stuff like “art”) to rank each other in hierarchies”. GPT4 explains: ”From an evolutionary standpoint, games and sports can be seen as extensions of primal competitions for resources, mates, and status. Competing and displaying skills in a controlled environment can serve as a non-lethal way to establish dominance and hierarchy within a group. This is similar to how animals engage in play-fighting or displays of strength to determine pecking orders without resorting to serious conflict.” What evolutionary purpose do you think games and sports serve if not the purpose above? It seems to me you like the “labor theory of value” because for you creating things is like a sport or game where ranking is important and difficulty of the task matters and innovation is “cheating” for the purpose of ranking. > How much time and effort have you spent trying to persuade me that art, sports, and games are frivolous? Maybe your time would be better spent researching something useful rather than writing these comments. Our chat is like a dialogue I have with myself (or with chatGPT) when I debate views to make up my mind about them: A joint search for truth. When a smart person (as you obviously are) changes my views on an important topic I am obviously better for it. And even if you do not change my mind, the thinking exercise is valuable. Thank you! > I just want creators who don't use AI to be credited for their work. Why would creators who do not use AI not get credit for their work? When you say the above you mean they should get extra credit? And would you give them even more extra credit when they did all their research without the help of any machines? Why does it matter if machines helped? Why not judge the research publication on its own merits? You want extra credits to handicap those using better tools because research is a game in which the difficulty must be maintained otherwise it is “cheating”? > The idea that you can use the English word "machine" to describe a human being is not the deep philosophical insight that you perceive it to be. There's nothing uncomfortable about it, because you're just playing a language game. A doctor would have no problem treating your illness without referencing the word "machine". This would maybe be an uncomfortable truth to an undergrad taking their first philosophy course. Your mind perhaps rejects the idea that why you think I am playing a language game using a metaphor when I am not using a metaphor. For you there is nothing uncomfortable accepting that living things are machines? I think you have not thought about the consequences of accepting this view: https://chat.openai.com/share/2fdd8863-6a3b-4a09-9d9c-b2f196e19b73 https://chat.openai.com/share/2fdd8863-6a3b-4a09-9d9c-b2f196... > if you only value the results of a process, rather than the human who derived the result, then what happens when humans are no longer required to produce any result? Our lives will likely change much like our lives of wandering around from place to place hunting gathering changed and then lives of subsistence farming changed, etc. If you accept the view that living things are machines (not as a metaphor but in reality) the concept of computational universality may give you a clue about our likely future. GPT4 explains: https://chat.openai.com/share/4dd5e6b3-6136-408a-a05a-10261d7fcc3d https://chat.openai.com/share/4dd5e6b3-6136-408a-a05a-10261d... > I don't know about you, but I don't plan on becoming a brain in a vat in some datacenter, and I definitely don't plan on becoming a file on someone's Digital Ocean droplet. We might just have different preferences. Assuming it is possible: How do you feel about having observations of what you say and write and do being used to create a model that can predict these things about you with such accuracy that those that know you can not tell the difference? Will that model in a “computational sense” not be you? Say, if given a matching body, that model can replace you such that those that know you cannot tell the difference. Will that also not be you? If you accept the reality that you are a machine, why will that not also be you? Because you are the atoms that make you you?

throwitaway1123 3y ago
> “Labor Theory of Value” vs “Marginal Utility Theory of Value”: you are familiar with these yet you still hold that view? The output of a less efficient process to create something comparable is more valuable _because_ a less efficient process was used? This is one of those comments that appears quite witty at first glance, but crumbles upon examination. First of all, I didn't say I value meticulously crafted art such as Michelangelo's statue of David because a _less efficient_ process was used to create it. I said I value it because of the _skill_ involved in creating it. As a human being, I naturally admire other skilled human beings. The reason why Michelangelo had to cultivate such a skill is obviously because of the state of technology during his lifetime, but that's completely beside the point. I'll take your comment in good faith and assume you truly misunderstood. Second, macroeconomic theory is best left in my opinion to goods and services that are fungible. So for example, you could use macroeconomic theory to explain the price of a commodity such as pure gold, because any pound of gold is just as valuable as any other pound of pure gold. Art is inherently non-fungible though. Not only are two similar pieces of art not equal in value, but two identical pieces of art are not identical in value (e.g. a forgery or replica isn't as valuable as the original). Even the crypto bros understand the difference between fungible and non fungible tokens. You could argue about why it is that humans value the non-tangible aspects of art, but it's a key component of our psyche. Valuing these aspects doesn't make you a Marxist, or an adherent to the Labor Theory of Value. Some of the most hardcore marginal utilitarians would find value in the original Declaration of Independence as opposed to a forgery for example. > The excellent https://youtu.be/WPL7D0Ha1kQ https://youtu.be/WPL7D0Ha1kQ documentary presents evidence that he did use tracing. In contrast to you that evidence made me more impressed with Verneer’s work. I would be more impressed by the person who supposedly invented the camera lucida almost two hundred years before any written or physical evidence of it appeared. > I answered that. No you provided an answer to the wrong question. You said in an earlier comment "If the result mattered, anything that improves the result would be welcome, not rejected as “cheating”." In this case the result being the outcome of a game of chess. What you are describing in your most recent comment is the motivation that drives people to sit at the chess board in the first place, which is a completely orthogonal topic. What I'm trying to get you to explain is how AI could possibly "innovate" once the competitors are sitting at the board. This is why I said you sound to me like someone suggesting that it would be "innovative" to allow cars in a foot race. Follow your own logic via reductio ad absurdum and see where it leads you. Forget AI, if we wanted to "innovate" in competitive games we'd allow adults to compete in children's sporting competitions, surely that would "improve the result"? I can't believe I'm explaining the concept of games to a fellow human being. Games are not primarily a science problem to be solved (or "innovated" upon) by a computer, they're a form of leisure. I've never had to ask this before, but are you a human being? Also, what about games that have been completely solved by computers such as checkers? We literally know what a perfect game of checkers looks like. If we used your method of "innovation" every game of checkers would be identical, because each participant would simply play the predetermined perfect game as calculated by a computer. When computers inevitably solve chess do you propose that we discontinue the game altogether since there's no longer any innovation left to be had? > It seems to me you like the “labor theory of value” You're vastly over-applying this principle. When you discover a new theory it's tempting to apply it to everything. The profession of economics is not in the business of deciding whether or not AI should be allowed in board games.

by czl 3y ago

throwitaway1123 3y ago

> “Labor Theory of Value” vs “Marginal Utility Theory of Value”: you are familiar with these yet you still hold that view? The output of a less efficient process to create something comparable is more valuable _because_ a less efficient process was used? This is one of those comments that appears quite witty at first glance, but crumbles upon examination. First of all, I didn't say I value meticulously crafted art such as Michelangelo's statue of David because a _less efficient_ process was used to create it. I said I value it because of the _skill_ involved in creating it. As a human being, I naturally admire other skilled human beings. The reason why Michelangelo had to cultivate such a skill is obviously because of the state of technology during his lifetime, but that's completely beside the point. I'll take your comment in good faith and assume you truly misunderstood. Second, macroeconomic theory is best left in my opinion to goods and services that are fungible. So for example, you could use macroeconomic theory to explain the price of a commodity such as pure gold, because any pound of gold is just as valuable as any other pound of pure gold. Art is inherently non-fungible though. Not only are two similar pieces of art not equal in value, but two identical pieces of art are not identical in value (e.g. a forgery or replica isn't as valuable as the original). Even the crypto bros understand the difference between fungible and non fungible tokens. You could argue about why it is that humans value the non-tangible aspects of art, but it's a key component of our psyche. Valuing these aspects doesn't make you a Marxist, or an adherent to the Labor Theory of Value. Some of the most hardcore marginal utilitarians would find value in the original Declaration of Independence as opposed to a forgery for example. > The excellent https://youtu.be/WPL7D0Ha1kQ https://youtu.be/WPL7D0Ha1kQ documentary presents evidence that he did use tracing. In contrast to you that evidence made me more impressed with Verneer’s work. I would be more impressed by the person who supposedly invented the camera lucida almost two hundred years before any written or physical evidence of it appeared. > I answered that. No you provided an answer to the wrong question. You said in an earlier comment "If the result mattered, anything that improves the result would be welcome, not rejected as “cheating”." In this case the result being the outcome of a game of chess. What you are describing in your most recent comment is the motivation that drives people to sit at the chess board in the first place, which is a completely orthogonal topic. What I'm trying to get you to explain is how AI could possibly "innovate" once the competitors are sitting at the board. This is why I said you sound to me like someone suggesting that it would be "innovative" to allow cars in a foot race. Follow your own logic via reductio ad absurdum and see where it leads you. Forget AI, if we wanted to "innovate" in competitive games we'd allow adults to compete in children's sporting competitions, surely that would "improve the result"? I can't believe I'm explaining the concept of games to a fellow human being. Games are not primarily a science problem to be solved (or "innovated" upon) by a computer, they're a form of leisure. I've never had to ask this before, but are you a human being? Also, what about games that have been completely solved by computers such as checkers? We literally know what a perfect game of checkers looks like. If we used your method of "innovation" every game of checkers would be identical, because each participant would simply play the predetermined perfect game as calculated by a computer. When computers inevitably solve chess do you propose that we discontinue the game altogether since there's no longer any innovation left to be had? > It seems to me you like the “labor theory of value” You're vastly over-applying this principle. When you discover a new theory it's tempting to apply it to everything. The profession of economics is not in the business of deciding whether or not AI should be allowed in board games.