As long as software is composed of primitive language derived statements and "functional" logic (IF, WHEN, WHILE, DO, GOTO, etc...) AI will remain a fantasy.
This is hard to parse. All software that can be represented as if and goto (and some sort of assignment i suppose)?
when, while and do are just if and goto.
alpha go is all just if and goto. I'm not sure what you're looking for or alluding to.
Is there some other operation that isn't just if and goto? because i think any function you come up with, i can just make a big table of inputs that result in specific outputs.
Heck, decrement and jump if zero is enough. I'm not convinced at all that specific operations are limiting us somehow. Could you elaborate?
I believe what he's saying is that we don't "think" in if/then statements. So true AI will never be intelligent-like if you judge intelligence as thinking like us.
Ummm.... no. You might be able to make the case that a neuron can be simulated with a very complex set of if-then statements, but that assumes that we can know everything about the state of a dozen inputs, which we can't. At any rate, the brain is not a computer:
https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-informati...
i like that this essay puts the complexity of the brain into perspective, but the distinction between a computer and an organism is kind of arbitrary. brains are physical systems that can be modeled mathematically. if you can create a mathematical model of a thing, you can execute that model on a computer. a brain isn't a classical computer, but that doesn't mean that a computer can't simulate a brain.
we currently lack the ability to recreate a brain-like entity, but the subtext that i am reading here is that the complexity of the brain is such that accurately modelling a brain in mathematical terms is impossible. the "brain-as-computer" model may not be accurate, but everything that exists can be expressed in mathematical (and therefore compute-able) terms.
i doubt that cyberbrains will run on anything that we recognize as a general-purpose cpu. gpu micro-architecture is already a significantly more efficient option for performing nn computations. as our grasp on this stuff improves, more specific silicon is being developed to make it even more efficient.
I don't think it's arbitrary. You even distinguished in this comment between a brain and a simulation of a brain. Steel is a physical system that can be modeled mathematically. Accurately simulating steel doesn't make steel.
Agreed. I think radioactive decay is an even better example of a well modeled physical system that defies simulation. A simulation of an ounce of decaying uranium won't tell you which atoms will decay in which order in a physical chunk. Ergo, somethings defy simulation.
This is not very complex and accurately models neurotransmission. What's missing here is the vastness of connections from a particular neuron towards thousands or more other neurons, but the inherent function is definitely not complex.
* weight being either 1 if you adopt a continous modelization (multiple serial input provide multiple serial output) or a float if you prefer the discrete modelization (sum of input to sum of output)
All software can compile down into mathematical expressions, logical branches and conditionals. That doesn't mean AI is limited to "Hello World" and FizzBuzz.
It's the concentration of wealth causing this as the economy is being bled dry. the fix is to restore the progressive tax code, income in excess of $5M/yr taxed at 99%. not rocket science, but nearly impossible because politics, so get used to being poor America. currently half of jobs in usa pay less than $18/hr. only going to get worse unless the root cause is addressed.
I wish I heard this view on taxes more often. Have a nice smooth tax curve up to like 95% at some income level (5 or 10 M). The rich are not taxed anywhere close to enough.
If someone figures out how to make 5M/year of income, I am absolutely certain they are better at capital allocation than the current administration. You are suggesting that they are not, and that we need to have the state decide where the money of the top earners go. I'm sorry, but we have tried that before. It does not end well.
OP did not imply that someone making 5M/year was not better at capital allocation than the government, but rather just implied a different measure of "better".
For example, there is a good chance that said individual would invest the money in more regulatory-capture extraction schemes. In this case, we would be better off if those resources were just straight-up wasted by the government proper.
Of course there's also a good chance that the government would use it to fund their own citizen-hostile totalitarianism (eg the NSA). The point is that the general heuristic of government inefficiency is inapplicable.
I don't think I know anyone who thinks that funding successful businesses is the ultimate goal of a society.
Many people argue that it's the best mechanism we have for achieving whatever our actual goals should be, but few if any will claim that running businesses is itself the higher purpose of human civilization.
In order for this conversation to be productive, we'd all have to agree on some underlying moral framework prescribing what society ought to achieve. And then we'd have to evaluate whether ultra-wealth people allocate their capital in a way that achieves that outcome.
No small tasks! But I expect that in the course of such a conversation, we might discover that there are a wide variety of rich people who spend their wealth in a wide variety of ways. Some of those people will typify your caricature of the rich, and some of those people will typify Harvey-Specter's caricature.
Finally, as an aside, you put the ultra-rich on quite a pedastal. They're just people who decided they wanted to accumulate wealth and then did a good job at achieving that.
It's admirable to do so well in a competitive environment, but no more or less admirable than the top 1% in anything else (a sport, medicine, religious/military leadership, teaching, etc.). Being great in a competitive atmosphere is a good signal, but wealth accumulation is not the only place where great humans compete and wealth is not the only metric which great humans use to measure their life's work...
> It's admirable to do so well in a competitive environment, but no more or less admirable than the top 1% in anything else (a sport, medicine, religious/military leadership, teaching, etc.).
Yes. And the irony is that the wealth accumulators ultimately do so using achievements made by other people, who cared more about other things than accumulating wealth.
Also, I don't think that the top 1% should have all the benefits (winner takes all).
Well what other "economics" are there if not "trickle-down" economics? How else, exactly, does wealth get from the rich to the poor if not through employment?
I think the problem with that argument is that the reasons an individual might be good allocating their own capital are distinct from the reasons they have capital, or what is justified, in the sense of ethical or societally defensible.
A successful white-collar criminal can be said to be good at capital allocation, to make an extreme example.
My argument is not that wealth means someone is criminal (although I do think criminality has as a goal wealth rather than poverty, which is the inverse but relevant). However I do think there are lots of hidden costs that people advertently or inadvertently manage to get out of paying for, and taxes are meant to recognize that fact.
The bailouts of the great recession are good examples of this to me in some sense. The government saved certain businesses, or ameliorated their crash. Whether or not this was the right decision is one thing, but given that they did get bailouts (or outs), suggests that what we should expect is taxes and regulation to support these kinds of things. There are lots of other things like this that conveniently get glossed over, like hidden environmental costs, education and infrastructure, research, etc.
I find it incredibly manipulative, for example, for arguments to be made against net neutrality on the grounds that telecom companies somehow bootstrapped their way up from nothing, when the internet itself was a government invention, and much of their infrastructure is made possible by public right-of-way laws or other privileges given by municipalities.
I think the fundamental problem with US society today is an extreme form of survivorship or fundamental attribution bias, where we grossly overattribute success to individual characteristics and not other factors. Then we get locked into these strawman debates that pit extreme capitalism against communism, as if there's no moderated grey area, that our only choices are complete equality of wages etc. or winner-takes all gross inequality.
What I increasingly see in the US are the haves and the have nots, and I no longer believe that the haves, by in the large, deserve what they have in a way that the have nots do not. Income inequality, to me, is bad not just because of the disparity itself, but because it tends to exaggerate market errors in valuation.
We tend to have these conversations and HN and elsewhere where we look at these examples of downward mobility and point to everything someone did wrong, but then do not turn to management, administration, business, etc. and ask "did they really do everything right"? We also tend to act as if, if they really made an error, that is really worth the downward mobility they accrued.
A 95% tax on incomes over $5M/year would raise about $100B per year in the US. That would be about a 3% increase in total federal revenue. Even if that were directly redistributed, every American would get a $400 check. It would not affect income inequality measurably.
96% of the population have a television. 90% have a cell phone. 80% have access to the Internet. Catastrophic healthcare is now capped, and low-income families are subsidized on health plans. Public education is mandated and provided everywhere. Public libraries are available in virtually every city.
The truth probably lies somewhere in between you and the OP.
Most of the things you've mentioned are at the top-half of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. For many, they are one pay check away from homelessness.
Public education, while mandated, is not equal, as property taxes pay for education across most of the U.S, which equates to, rich folks/better neighborhoods having access to better funded schools.
There was a hackernews comment some time ago that pointed out that the fundamental problem seems to be that over the years, the distribution of risk has moved from institutions to the individual. The individual bears the brunt of the risk, with cascading burdens tied to small emergencies.
The oft cited scenario of low-income folks losing their job due to car troubles, thus being on the brink of homelessness, due to non-payment of rent is becoming more of a reality for the middle class.
Never mind actually owning a television. The fact that you can purchase one for an amount of money that seems trivial is an indicator that you are, in an absolute sense, wealthy.
Our poorest people are in many ways wealthy compared to both people of times past and compared to people in poor nations. Homeless people can get apples and potatoes all year long, something even William the Conqueror couldn't have.
No, it's an indicator that things can be manufactured cheaply.
> The fact that you can purchase one for an amount of money
You can get TVs free off the sidewalk in most places. It is not an indicator of wealth.
> Our poorest people are in many ways wealthy compared to both people of times past and compared to people in poor nations. Homeless people can get apples and potatoes all year long, something even William the Conqueror couldn't have.
Homeless people are so wealthy...they don't have shelter? I think you're putting your foot in your mouth. Also can they get apples? With what money? Apples are available to purchase. That doesn't make them affordable.
EDIT: I rewrote this comment because I thought it was too combative, and not with the guidelines.
So. I think that the idea that we should tax the high earners of their entire income is a very bad idea! Would it not destroy the motivation of those top earners to work hard, to keep innovating, and to strive for success? It also makes the assumption that, should we take the income away from the top earners, that the state will do a better job at putting that money back into the economy. I think that assumption is incorrect. A person who has figured out how to make 5M a year, whether it's through advertising or a manufactured product, is probably better at capital allocation than a bureaucrat or politician.
You also mention that "the root cause needs to be addressed." Unfortunately, we don't know what the root cause of wealth inequality is, and all historical attempts at "fixing the root cause" with wealth redistribution have ended in catastrophe; we really do need to remember that because your comment is quite similar to Marx's famous quote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". In fact, unequal distribution of resources is a natural law, called the Pareto Principal, and it is everywhere: The height of trees, number of progeny of chimps, number of players that win Monopoly in a given game... Inequality is not an evil force, it is a natural force that has been fought historically at the great peril of the populations that decided to fight it.
Now, perhaps there is some variation of this progressive tax law that encourages investment. Perhaps that is even suggested in your comment. I would be open to something that allowed people to have 5M/year in income, but above that, they were heavily incentivized to invest.
Hopefully sooner? I think, hopefully never. As soon as you take the money away from the geniuses, the insanely industrious businessmen, and allow the lame bureaucrats and politicians to decide where it goes, then you destroy a generation: No more will angsty, thirsty, motivated young bloods work 20 hour days for a decade to build a business.
"And what happened next, Grandpa? Did such oppressive tax rates stem economic growth?"
"My boy, not at all! What followed was one of the most prosperous times in the country!"
I'm not saying correlation, causation, blah, blah, blah. But such rates not only didn't "destroy a generation", it's a time many look back to fondly (in which case they're probably white and male).
Fair enough, I think given the replies I've received that I need to learn more about tax rates and growth; since I've already started the conversation with you do you have any suggestions on how I should understand this topic better?
Your comment was dead but I thought I may as well vouch it. Although you wrote your point in a snarky tone, taking large corporations into account when discussing this topic seems at least halfway in good faith.
FWIW I too am a jobless Millennial at the moment, so it's not like I am playing devil's advocate because of a nefarious hidden agenda.
Extremely progressive taxation isn't effective. The very rich have ways of hiding or deferring income.
There's also the problem that there simply isn't very much money at that level. Just to put it into perspective, the top 1% of tax payers only had an AGI of about $2 trillion. Let me get even more extreme than what you propose. If you taxed at 100% over $1M/year, you'd only get $431 billion. So that would only add about $200 billion (about 15%) of Federal revenue per year since they're already paying about half of that on earnings over $1M/yr. Oh yeah, BTW, how would they pay local and state taxes out of that?
The problem is the rich using their wealth for more wealth accumulation, e.g. through rent seeking. Even if progressive taxing doesn't get you much money directly, indirectly it will improve wealth through a better wealth distribution.
In other words, it is no problem that the rich have more money; the problem is them using that money against the rest of us. If you don't see how, try entering a game of Monopoly a few rounds after it has started.
The long-term alternative is revolution where the rich are lined up against a wall and shot.
There is no natural law guaranteeing a right to private property. Nor is there anything guaranteeing wealth shall accrue to the wealthy. We could just as easily make it the law that accumulating net assets > $10m is punishable by death.
This same pattern has repeated itself many times. The people at the top accumulate all the money, the economy grinds to a halt, the 0.1% use propaganda and control of state power to suppress any attempts to change the status quo (whether violent or not), then eventually the system collapses under its own weight. The outcome is often quite bad for everyone but since the 90% have nothing to lose that hardly matters.
Unfortunately it was fear of communist revolution kept capitalism in check. Now nothing does. I fear we're going to continue our slow slide downward, with ever more cuts, voter suppression, and various fascist policies in an effort to control "the people" and prevent change. Without a relief valve pressure will just continue to build until it can't.
It pretty clearly is, which is why each downward shift of the nominal tax burden in the US (stretching back to the income to payroll tax burden shift under Reagan) has had noticeable effects on accelerating inequality.
> The very rich have ways of hiding or deferring income.
Mostly, as a direct result of tax policy directly designed to frustrate tax progressivity, most notably giving preferentially low tax rates to kinds of income mostly earned by the rich (long term capital gains are a big example), and loading up extra taxes (on top of normal income taxes) on labor income.
Making taxes more progressive is less about increasing progressivity in nominal rates as it is about addressing those issues (though making the nominal rates more progressive may also be part of it.)
The problem isn't the tax rate, it's the growing wealth inequality. Since you seem to have thought much about this already - do you agree it's a problem, and how would you fix it, if not for progressive taxation?
Growing wealth/income inequality is bad. Transfers can be effective for reducing wealth inequality. We'd need more revenue for that, however.
Progressive taxation is good. Progressive taxation that only targets the top 0.1% isn't effective unless income inequality were much worse than it is.
To make a meaningful amount of more revenue via income tax without hurting the bottom 90% too much, we'd need to target the top 10%. That probably means the top tax bracket should kick in around $130K. Much lower than where it is now, but high by the standards of many other rich countries (in the Netherlands 52% kicks in at $63k/yr, in Denmark it's 60% at $55/yr).
We should add a VAT too. Possibly with a simple UBI-style system to offset its impact on the poor (since they consume more of their earnings than the rich)
It's not the additional tax revenue that becomes the benefit. If anything above X amount gets eaten by tax, then it makes sense to increases business spending by:
- reinvesting into the business (cascades to more economic activity)
- paying for more employee benefits
- increasing employee compensation
- the cascading economic activity provides even more people with opportunities to make more money. virtuous effects.
Many small businesses use flow through taxation, so they don’t pay both corporate and personal tax. S corps and LLCs.
Even if the personal tax was capped at 5M, it then doesnt make sense for personal distributions greater than 5m, so the money stays in the corporation for reinvestment.
Certainly during the biggest period of US wage growth ushered in by the Internal Revenue Act of 1954. Income in excess of $400K/yr taxed at 90% ensured that businesses invested as management and shareholders weren't permitted to capture earnings.
>Certainly during the biggest period of US wage growth ushered in by the Internal Revenue Act of 1954.
It also helped that the world was destroyed and the US was the only developed country with sufficient manufacturing capacity. High taxes or not, that sort of environment is not going to happen anytime soon.
>Income in excess of $400K/yr taxed at 90% ensured that businesses invested as management and shareholders weren't permitted to capture earnings.
But CEOs and executives rarely have high income/base pay. They're incentivized by the owners of the company via performance linked bonuses, payment via stock options, long term incentive bonuses, etc.
these failing pensions are largely due to mismanagement, properly managed these retirement vehicles work as intended. unfortunately in the current climate a large company or even a state government can't resist the temptation to use a massive pension fund for something other than it's intended purpose. One lean quarter and they start eyeing up the 7 billion sitting in the pension fund. I read a book a couple years back that changed my thinking on pensions, before I was of the mind that they never worked, were a massive Ponzi scheme, stealing from young workers, etc... no, pensions work provided they are left alone. http://www.retirementheist.com/
One of the reasons I'm not a big fan of pensions is precisely that it's not "in the current climate", but a persistent problem over the span of decades. Many of the bills that are now compounding to an unignorable size are trainwrecks decades in the making. It isn't just that they were mismanaged today; they were mismanaged in the 200xs, and the 1990s (much harder to see because the stock market was doing really well up until it wasn't), and the 1980s... it's not hard to think that maybe the fact they worked at all was simply another historical accident of the bizarre just-after-WW2 period, rather than any sort of good idea. We seem to lack angels virtuous enough to be honest about the numbers and to resist dipping into the Honkin' Big Pile o' Money.
I'm convinced it's the changes in the tax laws at the root cause of this. When income over $400k/yr (5 mil in todays money) was taxed at 90% there wasn't the incentive to screw over retirees. The "bizarre just-after-WW2 period" wasn't some fluke it was the result of purposely crafted policies.
Don't know the model, but it's a Kyocera. Before this job, I'd only been exposed to that brand as one of the cheap printers for the Commodore 64. I guess it's come a long way!
