11 hours ago, Gian-Reto said:

if you are talking about fascists, yes, the far left also preaches a form of fascism, no matter how they try to sugarcoat it.

I'm not sure I really even want to begin debating this...it'll get nasty super fast. Not a rabbit hole I'm even going to comment on.

11 hours ago, Gian-Reto said:

So while there might be no revolt by sentinent machines in the short term, and incidents such as the ones mentioned probably get rarer... the only way to actually make sure those cannot happen is to remove self-learning from a machine, or restrict it very strictly until the machine is moving within a very small "echo chamber" when learning new things. Of course we could say that this is only a problem for the petty applications algorithms are used today (social media, running ads, chatting with strangers to prove the tech)... but then I believe the problem still exists in other applications

I mean, again, it's not that we get rid of oversight. There'd still be oversight. And again, instead of dealing with recessions, we deal with potential machine glitches. Like I said, we don't have a utopia so to speak: we've solved one set of problems and have some new ones that need solving. Such a system would, over time, get better I'd imagine.

15 hours ago, Gian-Reto said:

See, then its not REALLY communism. That is, as far as I understand it, socialism. mixed with some communist ideas, maybe. Communism tries to do away with the elite, and take away all kind of ownership.

The latter is why most people that are not slaves, piss poor or idealists will object to it... the former is why its usually resulting in a dictatorship. There will be ALWAYS an elite.... trying to destroy the elite, and prevent the organic formation of a new one just leaves a vacuum, which leads to the meanest bastard taking control.

What you propose is a strong socialist state, that borrows some ideas from Marx to ensure a more even resource allocation. Which might work even when the concept of private ownership, and a capitalistic, altough state controlled, econmy still exist.

You are basically going in the direction of modern day China, with a government more interested in equity between its citizens. And yeah, modern day China is not really a communist regime anymore. Which, as far as I am concerned, is good. Its also an authoritarian state. Which I find rather bad.... but that just shows the dangers of the concept, even with a watered down socialism. A strong state always is in danger of becoming a dictatorship.

I'm not gonna lie, I don't really care about the semantics of the name of what I'm proposing. I will note I'm not proposing a Chinese system. The Chinese system is, as I understand it, still a one party rule, with some elements of the free market. I'm not proposing a free market really. I propose that markets be replaced with AI and algorithms. BUT I say that we should still keep republics/democracy and the judiciary, since algorithms cannot necessarily decide things like foreign policy amongst other things. I think that @mikeman explained the gist of my algorithmic idea the best. 

6 hours ago, mikeman said:

What is your proposal to deal with this problem?

Exactly what I wanted to know, and now that I know!

2 hours ago, Kavik Kang said:

Mikeman, human lives are more important than the convenience of automation.  Human life is always the primary consideration in all things.  If robots are going to destroy human lives, then we should not build them. 

I mean, it's not a given they are going to destroy human lives. How have you drawn this conclusion? And, as others have pointed out, we can ban all sorts of technology with the exact same reasoning (many have tried). Moreover, as @Luckless has correctly pointed out, I can think of tons of examples of people whose lives are not being taken into consideration in capitalism. And, as @Gian-Reto has very correctly pointed out, capitalism doesn't really care for human lives, they're just resources...

This isn't to say that I hate capitalism or something, but rather that this line of argument is very faulty.

2 hours ago, Kavik Kang said:

if other nations want to build robots, let them, and then, as has so often been the case during the last 200 years or so, America will stand in defiance of the rest of the world as a shining beacon of light showing the way.  When people say "but every other civilized nation in the world does it this other way, so we should too" they are forgetting that America often does things differently than the rest of the world... and is the most advanced and powerful civilization in the history of the world for doing so.  We are generally about 50-100 years ahead of all other nations in almost every way for a reason.

Yea, this line of reasoning is just wrong. We are behind many nations in many things (education is one that springs to mind, then there's things like gun deaths, per capita GDP, shit even happiness of people in general is not America). This isn't a justification of why banning robots makes sense. You can justify any number of stupid things that way, but it doesn't change the fact that what you are doing is stupid. I've heard that line of reasoning from many people when trying to convince me that it's a smart idea to do X, even though others aren't.

Let's break it down. Say we do ban automation. What then? Companies will simply leave the US and start manufacturing elsewhere where it's legal. The US will lose many more jobs. Hardly sounds like a solution. More like blowing off your foot with a shotgun.

2 hours ago, Kavik Kang said:

There have been sci-fi stories, I can't remember specific examples right now, that advance the idea that such high levels of automation would eventually result in humans that have forgotten how to do anything but maintain the robots.  Eventually, when the robots stopped working, they would quickly regress hundreds of years into an almost primitive civilization.  But long before you even think it through that far, if they will ruin everyone's lives, if that is the predicted result... why build them in the first place?

A fair concern, but then maybe we should just stop using all forms of tech in case people forget what life is like without it. The only way to ensure that we don't forget living without technology is to not live with it period. Clearly we aren't doing that. 

1 hour ago, Gian-Reto said:

Dude, your military might still be 10 years ahead... but China is quickly gaining on you there. The tech companys that are still ahead are actually multinationals by now, ready to jump ship should the US become hostile for globalist companys. High-tech manufacturing is by now mostly done in Asia, you might be on par with germany there by now (given one of the biggest chip factories in the west is located in germany)

Wake up man... the US might not be as **** as some doom-and-gloom-guys might have believe and still do, but you are quickly loosing your "leader of the free world" title.

It absolutely blows my mind that people actually hold this idea that America still owns the world. America has the world's largest economy and there is no question that America is extremely important in many ways and not going anywhere anytime soon. But America is not the sole nation for doing any number of things. This wasn't even true during the Cold War. It's definitely not true now. And it's even more debatable on the 'leader of the free world' given current events with the US...

1 hour ago, Gian-Reto said:

Well maybe explain to me then how ownership should work in communism. As far as I get the theory, nobody owns anything but "the people" (which means the state, or the elite, depending on how authoritarian or neo-monarchist the communis^tic state in question is)... which in turn "lend" what is needed for people to do their job and live a normal life to those that need it.

Probably @mikeman has a better idea than I do, but as I understand it, the idea is that the 'means of production' are shared. IE, the factories, or in this case, the automated factories and resource allocation algorithms, are not owned by any one person or group of persons. Personal possessions still exist (like finished products). I can still own a car, or a house. But I can't own a factory. As I also understand it, Marx himself didn't give a clear idea of what the world would look like after capitalism and under 'Communism'.

1 hour ago, SeraphLance said:

The thing I don't buy about the whole automation angle is that we've been using technology to make people's jobs obsolete for tens of thousands of years, yet somehow an overwhelming majority of us are still employed because new jobs open up in response.  Why is it treated as a foregone conclusion that this will stop happening at some point?

Frankly this sounds about as silly to me as the whole "zombie apocalypse" shtick.

I don't think it's necessarily apocalyptic, I just feel that low skilled jobs are disappearing. And we are seeing that the income gap and wealth disparity is increasing. There are more programming jobs, but can we expect everyone to know these skills? More and more we are seeing AI and algorithms applied to accomplish things without humans at all.

10 minutes ago, Kavik Kang said:

I know you don't want to hear this, and I am trying to avoid mentioning it, but you'd really have to read the PDU timeline to understand where I am even coming from.  That makes it hard for me to answer a lot of what you are saying, because we are speaking from the perspective of very different histories.  Based on the things you are saying, I can tell that the reality you believe in is far different from mine... and I'm already familiar with yours and where it comes from.  So you'd have to know mine, and where it comes from, before you could really understand what I mean in my responses.

Your response to literally any attempt to debate you has been "read my book". It seems like a way to sidestep basically all questions. It cannot be that tough to simply respond to a question posed. It cannot and should not take a novel to explain simply answers.

16 minutes ago, Kavik Kang said:

But, a few things... What "right wing dictators"?  Can you name one?  There has never been a "fascist republic", or a republic that you could describe as an "evil empire".  There are no "republican dicators" in all of history that I am aware.  Just kings and communists.  And you "Hitler v Stalin" example... We've already been over that, they are both communists.  They are both "left".

I get the nasty feeling you're one of those people who thinks that only the Left is wrong...

And no, you're wrong here. Hitler absolutely hated Marxists and liberals. As per Wikipedia:

Quote

The majority of scholars identify Nazism in both theory and practice as a form of far-right politics.[13] Far-right themes in Nazism include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements.[14]

...

The Nazis were strongly influenced by the post–World War I far-right in Germany, which held common beliefs such as anti-Marxism, anti-liberalism and antisemitism, along with nationalism, contempt for the Treaty of Versailles and condemnation of the Weimar Republic for signing the armistice in November 1918 which later led it to sign the Treaty of Versailles.[21] A major inspiration for the Nazis were the far-right nationalist Freikorps, paramilitary organizations that engaged in political violence after World War I.[21]

The full article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

On fascism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

On far right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics

Nationalism is not a Left wing concept. It is a distinctly right wing concept. Nativism is also a distinctly far-right concept.

Are there similarities between far left and far right? Yes, in that typically extremists hate dissent. That does not mean that they have the same underlying ideological principles. 

Your respond to these points is either "read my book" or to just repeat yourself. We aren't really getting anywhere here, so I don't see the point in continuing.

29 minutes ago, Kavik Kang said:

The United States is 50-100 years of the rest of the world in just about every way, not just military, and has been since some point during 1943 or 44.  And China is not 10 years behind us, the Russians are still 20 behind us and have only recently begun to catch up solely due to 8 years of the "policies" of Dear Leader.  China is a minor nation of insignificant military power compared to the United States, just like everyone else on the planet except for the Russians.  In a real, all-out, WWII-minded war like a war with China would be... China's government would collapse and it's army would give up, disband, and go home in the same three weeks it took to do the same thing to Afghanistan, and Iraq (twice).  We know how long it takes us to defeat any nation except Russia in an all-out war... 3 weeks.  China would be no different.  You clearly have no concept of the difference between the US military and everyone else, but most people don't.  Most people have no concept of just how much better we are at blowing things up than everybody else is.  But we are.

The US is absolutely not 50-100 years ahead of the rest of the world...that kind of disparity would imply that the rest of the world is still stuck on horses and bullock carts and muskets. That's just patently false. There are certain parts of the world that are pretty bad, granted. But much of Europe is very well developed. China (amongst other Asian nations) have rapidly redeveloped since the turn of the millennium. And as I stated above, there are plenty of categories the US is behind in.

China has the world's largest army dude. And plenty of nukes to back it up along with a rapidly redeveloping military that is geared towards dealing with US threats.. The US might win out in the end, but after a brutal, prolonged struggle, which could very well mean the destruction of both nations in the end anyways. It's not a friggin' pushover war.

Afghanistan and Iraq are both extremely different from China...when we invaded Afghanistan, it was in very poor shape. That's not an achievement. Iraq was also never a nation in the same league. Even you admit that a war with Russia wouldn't be easy. It'd be just as disastrous. 

Most people have no concept of how much better the US military is? I think you have no concept of the sheer costs that'd be involved in any war with Russia or China.

In any event, this is way OT.

In any event, your continued attacks on Obama also pretty much cement my above feeling.

40 minutes ago, Kavik Kang said:

As for the US standing alone... no problem.  "Go ahead, punks... Make our day!"  Like many today, you probably believe that "we better not attack Iran, they'll sink are navy!".  If that is the case, the the US military is about 1,000,000 times more capable than you believe it too be.

I think you really are failing to understand the new globalized world. 

2 hours ago, Gian-Reto said:

Well maybe explain to me then how ownership should work in communism. As far as I get the theory, nobody owns anything but "the people" (which means the state, or the elite, depending on how authoritarian or neo-monarchist the communis^tic state in question is)... which in turn "lend" what is needed for people to do their job and live a normal life to those that need it.

The theories I've read that sound remotely practical would run along the lines of the government owns all the companies/production collectives/Associations, and that individuals would own their general personal property. So you own your computer, your clothes, the stuff in your house, and the house you live in. However the factory producing those computers? That is owned "By the Government", or more specifically owned "By Everyone", much like publicly traded companies are owned by their shareholders, except everyone gets one share in it, and there are exactly as many shares as there are people.

But the real kicker for a modern adoption of a public ownership system is that we have two key things working in our favour:

1. Hindsight on how things rather clearly Don't work, so we can be pretty sure that a dictator ruling by force of arms is 'probably a very bad idea' as compared to a carefully planned democratic transition.

2. Communication, tracking, and computer aided systems aren't what they were last century. 

When it comes to things consumer goods, we are now in a far better position to gauge demand - Think of an Amazon like system, expect rather than only ordering stuff that's currently in stock you could also post something along the lines of "Yes, this product is something I will/would want in the future" - Rather than dozens or even hundreds of companies guessing how many of a given thing they should make, a centralized (computer aided) production/logistics chain could more closely tailor production to demand. - If literally EVERYONE wanted a NES classic, then the factory(s) are tooled up to meet demand, and production of various goods get assigned suitable priority. (We don't expand NES classic production factories into a space used to make parts for MRI machines if there are shortages of MRIs in hospitals kind of thing. And we don't tool up an entire factory to meet demand for a product that only a few dozen people want if they could be built less efficiently in a flexible workshop over a longer period of time.)

1 hour ago, SeraphLance said:

The thing I don't buy about the whole automation angle is that we've been using technology to make people's jobs obsolete for tens of thousands of years, yet somehow an overwhelming majority of us are still employed because new jobs open up in response.  Why is it treated as a foregone conclusion that this will stop happening at some point?

Frankly this sounds about as silly to me as the whole "zombie apocalypse" shtick.

Eh, the problem with the advancement of technology and robotics is that where previous advances opened up new job sectors, we're not really seeing the "New job creation" - When steam engines and water wheels replaced much of the grunt work for metal smithing jobs, we were then able to create far more jobs in the new field of machining. As early machines replaced workers in mills, we created jobs to repair and build those machines, move the products, sell them, and repair the items made. As electronics expanded we made new jobs in media, camera operators, managers, etc.

So the 'problem' is that the jobs advanced robotics could be expected to open up, such as repairing robots, isn't generating new jobs for humans as we're skipping right to a robot that can repair the other robots... And computers that will manage the robots, and we're even already getting into computers that are designing and programming the robots. 

>>The United States is 50-100 years of the rest of the world in just about every way, not just military, 

I'm interested to hear what exactly this means, since you said "not just military". We're both 2 average people, you're living in the US, I'm living in Eiurope(Sweden currently). What is it that you enjoy that I don't? Better workplace conditions? Better technology? More leisure time? Better healthcare? Better public transportation? More clean environment? Please elaborate. Do you guys have flying cars and the medi-pods from Elysium over there?

10 hours ago, SeraphLance said:

The problem with categorizing fascists as right-wing is that a central pillar of fascism is state ownership of industry.  That's about as un-right as you can get.  Nationalism is certainly a right-wing characteristic, but I have to question the idea that nationalism should have higher priority than ownership of industry when categorizing it on the political spectrum.

From the Wikipedia page:

Quote

Nationalism is the main foundation of fascism.[171] The fascist view of a nation is of a single organic entity that binds people together by their ancestry and is a natural unifying force of people.[172] 

...

Fascism presented itself as a third position,[when?] alternative to both international socialism and free market capitalism.[184] While fascism opposed mainstream socialism, it sometimes regarded itself as a type of nationalist "socialism" to highlight their commitment to national solidarity and unity.[185][186] Fascists opposed international free market capitalism, but supported a type of productive capitalism.[187][104]

...

Fascist economics supported a state-controlled economy that accepted a mix of private and public ownership over the means of production.[195] Economic planning was applied to both the public and private sector and the prosperity of private enterprise depended on its acceptance of synchronizing itself with the economic goals of the state.[196] Fascist economic ideology supported the profit motive, but emphasized that industries must uphold the national interest as superior to private profit.[196]

While fascism accepted the importance of material wealth and power, it condemned materialism which identified as being present in both communism and capitalism and criticized materialism for lacking acknowledgement of the role of the spirit.[197] In particular, fascists criticized capitalism not because of its competitive nature nor support of private property, which fascists supported—but due to its materialism, individualism, alleged bourgeois decadence and alleged indifference to the nation.[198] Fascism denounced Marxism for its advocacy of materialist internationalist class identity, which fascists regarded as an attack upon the emotional and spiritual bonds of the nation and a threat to the achievement of genuine national solidarity.[199]

While certainly there are elements of Socialist ideas, it's not a left wing ideology either. By and large, it is a right-wing ideology that seeks to promote the nation. It is, at its core, a nationalist ideology that does not believe in equality, nor does it care about equality. Left wing ideologies usually want to promote equality for all. That is not the case with fascism. Typically it's about promoting one set of people in terms of race. Socialist ideals are subservient to the notion of promoting the 'nation', or usually, race. It is founded in a inherently right wing ideal of nativism, or promoting a race. Kavik's assertion that Hitler is 'just another Communist' is false. Stalin was absolutely a Communist, as was Lenin. Hitler was not just another Communist. 

To be fair, a traditional one dimensional left-right political spectrum doesn't usually capture the intricacies. Here's a better spectrum:

Delta, your post is exactly why I keep having to say "you'd have to read the PDU timeline".  It's very educational, especially to your generation.

“It's not that liberals aren't smart, it's just that so much of what they know isn't so.” - Ronald Reagan

Hitler was a communist.  Almost everyone in Germany was a communist in those years.  The Germans created communism, it comes from them.  Hitler led the nationalist communists.  He really hated... just about everyone that wasn't a part of his tiny little group.  It's almost comical that people don't understand this simply from the title... "socialist workers party".  That "workers party" should be a dead give away all by itself.

As for most of the rest of what you said, nothing you believe about America and it's place in the world is true.  You've been brainwashed.  

You clearly understand nothing about the military or war.  The fact that "China is the largest army in the world" is completely meaningless.  The number of men carrying rifles that they have is as meaningless as the number of men carrying swords that they have.  China's government would collapse, and the army would disband and go home, in the same three weeks it takes us to do that to any minor nation of insignificant military power.  When you are hunting with a 120mm cannon, it doesn't matter if the target is a mouse or a rabbit.

This is why I am largely avoiding this discussion in any detail, because you are living in a fantasy land.  You've been brainwashed, and most of what you think you know would need to be unlearned before we could have a reasonable discussion of these kinds of subjects.  Because of what Reagan said above.  You, specifically, really could learn a lot from the PDU timeline.  It was written more for people like you than it was for anyone else.

Finally, the only "events unfolding in America" right now are you being brainwashed even more.  I hate to break this too you, but almost nothing that you believe is true.

13 minutes ago, Kavik Kang said:

Delta, your post is exactly why I keep having to say "you'd have to read the PDU timeline".  It's very educational, especially to your generation.

You keep at it bro. I'm not about to read your game lore book. Why? Because you yourself related it to game lore. And you also seem to think that you're perspective is above that of what most historians agree on. At the end of the day, you're a dude on the Internet.

I mean, this isn't some sort of peer reviewed work from a verifiable expert in the field, right? 

I'm not claiming to be an expert either. I'm also just a dude on the Internet. We're all just debating things here. You haven't provided any evidence to back up your claims other than "read my game lore" and just keep on repeating yourself as if asserting yourself over and over will make whatever you say fact. A book on game lore is hardly evidence for anything. It'd be like using Harry Potter as proof that some ideology is wrong. If you've got some real sources, from actual articles or journals or something, by all means, provide them. This discussion hasn't been remotely constructive.

17 minutes ago, Kavik Kang said:

“It's not that liberals aren't smart, it's just that so much of what they know isn't so.” - Ronald Reagan

Yea you keep believing that.

18 minutes ago, Kavik Kang said:

Hitler was a communist.  Almost everyone in Germany was a communist in those years.  The Germans created communism, it comes from them.  Hitler led the nationalist communists.  He really hated... just about everyone that wasn't a part of his tiny little group.  It's almost comical that people don't understand this simply from the title... "socialist workers party".  That "workers party" should be a dead give away all by itself.

Again, I've posted the links about this and made arguments about it. Asserting this over and over again, without evidence does not make it true. You haven't even remotely bothered to debate any points at all. We are not going to read your book on game lore. Your assertion is basically coming more and more towards "Liberalism and Left wing is always wrong!". This is no longer a constructive discussion. 

24 minutes ago, Kavik Kang said:

As for most of the rest of what you said, nothing you believe about America and it's place in the world is true.  You've been brainwashed. 

Yea no. Being self-righteous isn't going to work here. The US is in no way 50-100 years ahead of the entire world. That statement is so false that it's laughable. 

I can provide the links to this:

Per Capita GDP:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

World's Happiest Countries:

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

World's Most Educated Countries:

https://nordic.businessinsider.com/wef-global-competitiveness-report-most-educated-countries-in-the-world-2016-10

World's Largest Economies (Here the US is number 1, followed closely by China):
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/022415/worlds-top-10-economies.asp

World's Highest Standard of Living:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/07/these-countries-have-the-highest-quality-of-life

I mean this list could go on, but the point is that while the US is certainly doing well and is certainly an integral part of the world economy, your statement of being 50-100 years ahead of the entire world is absolutely false. There is no brainwashing here, other than maybe you being brainwashed.

31 minutes ago, Kavik Kang said:

You clearly understand nothing about the military or war.  The fact that "China is the largest army in the world" is completely meaningless.  The number of men carrying rifles that they have is as meaningless as the number of men carrying swords that they have.  China's government would collapse, and the army would disband and go home, in the same three weeks it takes us to do that to any minor nation of insignificant military power.  When you are hunting with a 120mm cannon, it doesn't matter if the target is a mouse or a rabbit.

The same could absolutely be said about you. You have provided no evidence for any of these claims. I have simply stated that while the US would probably win, it won't be some sort of pushover fight the way you think. It would be a very costly conflict unless you decide to go nuclear, and even then, it'd be costly. 

In a conventional war, a foreign aggressor would probably not cause the army to disband and go home. There is a big difference between invading Afghanistan and invading a nation like China. You seem to think the Chinese are armed with muskets and swords. Sure a 120mm cannon kills, but they've got 120mm cannons as well. Here's a scorecard to give you an idea:

https://www.rand.org/paf/projects/us-china-scorecard.html

The US has advantages, but it would be a costly conflict. 

And you also neglect to even examine the economic impact that this would have. It would equally be devastating. You have not debated anything here either. This isn't constructive.

39 minutes ago, Kavik Kang said:

This is why I am largely avoiding this discussion in any detail, because you are living in a fantasy land.  You've been brainwashed, and most of what you think you know would need to be unlearned before we could have a reasonable discussion of these kinds of subjects.  Because of what Reagan said above.  You, specifically, really could learn a lot from the PDU timeline.  It was written more for people like you than it was for anyone else.

I don't see how you're doing any favors by posting the same statements without any evidence to back them up over and over. All you've done is proved your own self-righteousness and arrogance (asserting that we are living in a fantasy land, when you've provided no proof of anything is pretty arrogant...). You aren't even trying to have a discussion here. You just keep flinging your game lore book in our faces along with quotes from people you seem to regard as Saints (Reagan, etc.). You haven't done anything constructive here.

Honestly, if you don't think you can have a discussion, then why are you posting here? If we are so far behind in what we know, then what good is this going to do?

45 minutes ago, Kavik Kang said:

Finally, the only "events unfolding in America" right now are you being brainwashed even more.  I hate to break this too you, but almost nothing that you believe is true.

And this is where I draw the line. Your arrogance and inability to debate are fairly obvious and summed up in this statement. It's fairly clear that you're just a person utterly stuck in his beliefs that the Right is always right and nothing more. It's clear you have some very irrational hatreds and very irrational beliefs. I will not continue in debating you, so don't bother man.

This was "the family business" for two generations.  I do know more about the history of Russia and the true nature of Soviet intelligence than "historians".  A lot more.  You can learn from one of the few people left these days who ever knew the true history of the last 100 years to begin with, or you can ignore it and continue to live in a fantasy world created by Soviet intelligence.  That is entirely up too you.

One thing we haven't talked about is that, today, most jobs, in the West at least, is not in sectors like farming or manufacturing, but in the service sector.

For example...suppose starbucks can replace all their barristas with robots with voice-recognition that will take your order and prepare your coffee just as good as any human... is it actually desirable for them to do it? Maybe customers simply will prefer to interact with humans in such cases? In other words, talking jobs where a key part part of the service is the human interaction itself.

Maybe we'll all just become barristas and bartenders?