Maybe We Already Have Runaway Machines 45
A new book argues that the invention of states and corporations has something to teach us about A.I. But perhaps it's the other way around. From a report: One of the things that make the machine of the capitalist state work is that some of its powers have been devolved upon other artificial agents -- corporations. Where [David] Runciman (a professor of politics at Cambridge) compares the state to a general A.I., one that exists to serve a variety of functions, corporations have been granted a limited range of autonomy in the form of what might be compared to a narrow A.I., one that exists to fulfill particular purposes that remain beyond the remit or the interests of the sovereign body.
Corporations can thus be set up in free pursuit of a variety of idiosyncratic human enterprises, but they, too, are robotic insofar as they transcend the constraints and the priorities of their human members. The failure mode of governments is to become "exploitative and corrupt," Runciman notes. The failure mode of corporations, as extensions of an independent civil society, is that "their independence undoes social stability by allowing those making the money to make their own rules."
There is only a "narrow corridor" -- a term Runciman borrows from the economists Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson -- in which the artificial agents balance each other out, and citizens get to enjoy the sense of control that emerges from an atmosphere of freedom and security. The ideal scenario is, in other words, a kludgy equilibrium.
Corporations can thus be set up in free pursuit of a variety of idiosyncratic human enterprises, but they, too, are robotic insofar as they transcend the constraints and the priorities of their human members. The failure mode of governments is to become "exploitative and corrupt," Runciman notes. The failure mode of corporations, as extensions of an independent civil society, is that "their independence undoes social stability by allowing those making the money to make their own rules."
There is only a "narrow corridor" -- a term Runciman borrows from the economists Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson -- in which the artificial agents balance each other out, and citizens get to enjoy the sense of control that emerges from an atmosphere of freedom and security. The ideal scenario is, in other words, a kludgy equilibrium.
the primary goal is to win the game (Score:2)
the primary goal is to win the game
Re: (Score:2)
That's what's should be the propaganda, but in reality, the "house should always win", as in you don't allow any company to actually win the game.
Re: (Score:2)
Palestinian Local = winner none
Palestinian Tactical = winner none
Israel Discretionary = winner none
Re: (Score:2)
The point of the "capitalism game" is to change the context of the wars to money tossing instead of human life tossing.
People with greed will always exist, and on a "natural context", they just make themselves a throne made out of skulls to sit on, unless you fool em into chasing some papers or digital numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
The point of the "capitalism game" is to change the context of the wars to money tossing instead of human life tossing.
People with greed will always exist, and on a "natural context", they just make themselves a throne made out of skulls to sit on, unless you fool em into chasing some papers or digital numbers.
But if you can get rid of the right human lives, you save money...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
which explains the war on the elderly in the US. Of course, Canada just kills them, we haven't gotten that advanced yet.
And the UK
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the game manager play the chips right, that can be mitigated.
But the "game manager" right now is friends with 5 or 6 players and will do everything in their hands to protect em, not being aware of what happens when they're the only left in the table.
Re: (Score:2)
People with greed will always exist, and on a "natural context", they just make themselves a throne made out of skulls to sit on, unless you fool em into chasing some papers or digital numbers.
Chasing money within capitalism is not necessarily less destructive than being a barbarian warlord, if you're sitting in your private jet that you had to ruin hundreds of lives to afford, that's no less destructive than a throne of skulls. It would be much better if their options in that arena were greatly restricted too and we could get these people into a properly safe environment where they can fulfill their urges as a harmless sport, like EVE Online.
Re: (Score:2)
The winner is the arms producers, and the capitalist system that produces them. Sure overall its a loss, but their are winners, just not the direct participants.
Re: (Score:2)
the primary goal is to win the game
The sentient machines that survive will be the ones that we don't notice... This is evolution.
Corrupt (Score:2)
The runaway machine is 10,000 years of corruption and dictatorship, sapping progress by making investment far less likely to succeed, and if you do succeed, not have your profit looted.
Countries with economic freedom, including corporations, vastly outstrip others in progress and development. The problems people complain about are little nattering about the edges issues, compared to feeding and housing difficulties in the corrupt nations.
Re:Corrupt (Score:5, Interesting)
"The runaway machine is 10,000 years of corruption and dictatorship, sapping progress"
That sounds like an interesting theory. Is there evidence showing what progress was held back 8000 years ago due to "corruption and dictatorship"?
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't really get corruption and dictatorships until the farming of grains, which allowed government and taxes as grains kept.
Re: (Score:2)
And you don't think corruption and dictatorship within a corporation is having any negative progress-sapping effects?
Corporations didn't exist 10000 years ago. (Score:2)
And they didn't have personhood [wikipedia.org] until relatively recently.
When they've gotten it by traditional means - they stole it. [wikipedia.org]
The corporation IS a machine (Score:5, Insightful)
Like a Terminator, you can't argue with it, you can't reason with it, and it will never stop, ever, in its pursuit of ever increasing shareholder value.
The product doesn't matter, the customers don't matter, the employees don't matter, the environment doesn't matter, the law doesn't matter, all that matters is increasing shareholder value.
We created this monster years ago and it has taken total control
Easily stopped (Score:2)
Like a Terminator, you can't argue with it, you can't reason with it, and it will never stop, ever, in its pursuit of ever increasing shareholder value.
It will stop when shareholder value keeps diminishing.
Even if they goal of what they are trying to do is to increase shareholder value, we all know often that does not work - either from companies we have worked at where short-sighted policies meant to increase profit lead to inevitable decline (sometimes failure), or from giant corporations making ever more
Wanna buy some GME, customer? (Score:3)
How about BBBY? [youtube.com]
Maximizing, prioritizing or even valuing shareholder value is a myth. [wikipedia.org]
You're not a customer. You're a chump.
Re: (Score:2)
There's quite a bit of criticism of this, as not being deeply researched. But intuitively buy less stupid shit, buy less often should have some beneficial
Baloney (Score:2)
The failure mode of corporations is being top-heavy with paper-pushers and forgetting that creating products that people actually want to buy is what made them successful.
Re: (Score:2)
The failure mode of corporations is being top-heavy with paper-pushers and forgetting that creating products that people actually want to buy is what made them successful.
That's the old view. The new view - a much more accurate one in my opinion - is that corporations have figured how to game and outright cheat society and its rules such that they can be successful without having to give a rat's ass about "products that people actually want to buy". Take a good honest look at telecommunications companies in North America, then tell me they care about what customers want. They don't care, because they don't have to.
Your next argument might be that doesn't apply to companies t
Misses the point (Score:2)
I don't find arguments for AI alignment x-risk very compelling, however, the whole point of those arguments is to suggest that AI won't just sorta get things wrong in the ways that governments of corporations might but that they will be highly systematic and unstoppably effective in pursuing goals that take no note of human concerns. The whole argument is that they won't just be like a government or corporation that gets too wrapped up in profit but that they will turn the world to ash to build more paperc
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the argument is basically that AIs will be just like corporations and government, except that it will make decisions more quickly than people can react to them.
Whether AI alignment is a good idea depends on what you mean by alignment. If it means "do what someone asks you to do", then it's probably a bad idea. If it means "avoid doing what most people hate or despise" then it's probably a good idea. If it means "act for the long-term good of humanity" then it is a good idea. But lots of people
Can someone please translate this for me? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow my thoughts exactly.
If you zoom way out and look at both entities as black boxes and next make all sorts of assumptions about appropriateness of other feedback mechanisms, machine learning kinda looks like it might produce similar results to people organized around say a company charter as their 'prompt'.
I would hope so, because if you want to get that abstract about it, well that is what these large language models and related technologies are designed to do.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd guess that the details you're looking for don't exist. And that they really can't exist yet. Currently we've got lots of pieces of an AI that haven't been assembled together. And we're still missing a few. So we really don't know the details of what the final shape will be.
Try this as a model, though:
AI is like a corporation that can make decisions and change it's mine faster than a human can, and can evaluate new evidence more quickly. And it will act to implement goals that most people don't unde
Re: (Score:2)
I read it 4 times, carefully. Yes, English is my primary language. The article is comparing corporations to AI in that they can have different ranges of freedom to operate and both can get out of control. Um, insightful? Beyond that its very difficult to parse the text. Lots of philosophical buzzwords thrown in there as well. Is this a word salad written by a liberal arts professor, or the result of some ChatGPT prompt, or am I just dumb? The logic seems to jump all over the place.
Try it stoned. It seems a very "stoner insight into nothing" thought experiment.
Re: (Score:2)
Tis a weird double-think example aint it?
on one hand
>the people running corporations would do anything for revenue, even selling their own mothers into slavery
and on the other
>corporate hiring needs to be forced into hiring diverse voices blahblah blah (translation: anyone other than white men)
Which is it? If diversity through hiring practices actually made business sense, they'd do it on their own -- and wouldn't need mommy to enforce it. After all, corporations shown themselves throughout the years
Re: (Score:2)
If you're not just being rhetorical, some "corporations have shown themselves throughout the years to be run by completely amoral sharks".
The problem with that is that the same is true of companies which aren't corporations. And of governments. And of mobs of people. So I think you are improperly assigning agency. I attribute the problem to positions where power is not accompanied by enforced requirement for restitution. "And eye for an eye" isn't a good rule, but perhaps it should be enforced on thos
Always Remember (Score:1)
THEY'RE TAKING OVER THE WORLD!!!! (NOT) (Score:1)
Re: THEY'RE TAKING OVER THE WORLD!!!! (NOT) (Score:2)
You mean like how over half the world population dumps their secrets into the black box called Meta 150years ago, or that a handful of corporations 150years ago had bigger turnovers than many medium-sized countries and monopolized the rest out of the market????
NOT
Re: (Score:1)
Runaway machines? I believe i saw that movie. (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I vaguely recall seeing a movie about runaway machines and corrupt corporations that built them in a movie on late night TV. I recall the robots had the ability to identify individuals by some kind of heat signature, allowing for targeted assassinations to happen by remote, potentially looking like accidents but perhaps I recall incorrectly. I do recall the movie ending with the antagonist being hoisted by his own petard, his robots were programmed to kill anyone that look
University prof hates capitalism (Score:2)
Finds a new analogy in AI to bash it. Got it.
University professors have hated capitalism for generations.