At the rate image generation is progressing, trying to corner a specific application will be difficult. I say this after seeing DALL:E take payments for their service for maybe 3 months before stable diffusion completely kneecapped them with an open source program that does their tech better.

“SD retards guide” lol.

I see the pirates have tried to mitigate their PR image with their support naming choices

I appreciate the call out! Thank you!

This is so cool. God, I wish I paid more attention in school. I’ve been trying to get these amazing programs running on my Gaming computer and am making progress but I’m so far away. Nearly got a running Stable Diffusion but ran into a memory issue (12gb GPU, I need to figure out how to dedicate a graphics card.)

The advancement in AI this year has led me to learning basic 3D printing and coding. I never had the desire to learn more about the more technical side of computing until now. If I had as much time to waste now as I did when I was a teen…

That’s where my intuition leads me to believe. And thinking on it further, the contemplation on relative abundance/gravitation towards remaining scarcity already has some scientific research to draw on.

The scarcity mindset leads to worse cognitive performance and short/long decision making. I’d say there’s good reason to describe it as self perpetuating. Any gravitation to scarcity (those focused on sentimentality, status goods, luxuries that have available/like alternatives) should start to reduce in a society where relative abundance is efficiently distributed.

Sorry if my initial comment came off as argumentative as it seems. There’s all too common a trope of “hurr durr no money no incentive” when a genuine approach to these issues is brought up. Thanks for the conversation

Yup. It’s those most scarce items that are the hardest to program policy for, especially since those qualities you mention try to stray away from being gamified, but now you have to prepare for actors to work around that. If disability is a deciding factor, who determines? Now we’re talking means testing. Will their reputation score be considered, or will the most disabled actor be chosen over a slightly less disabled actor with more sentimentality and contribution?

Very complex problem. And also one that is good to ponder as a share of overall societal conflict. In a world with relative abundance, we clearly see a lack of efficiency and can draft up an exercise like this. But what happens to the things that can never > 1?

I feel like the only workable solution is advanced virtual simulations of scarce experiences for those actors with selfish motivations (for lack of a more nuanced description).

Assuming status goods are all forms of luxury. An agent may be motivated to live on a specific plot of land because of childhood memories. Another actor wants to live there because the house has the best view of a mountain. How is this conflict resolved in a barter-free, money-free simulation? (Sorry if this is stated in your material I’m not sure how to navigate the website.)

I guess I wasn’t taking that approach. My thoughts were that actors would have their own intrinsic motivations that may or may not align with the games goal, such as maximize luxury procurement.

This reminds me of a chatbot conversation I was just having with “God” about building a simulation in which all rewards (dopamine) can only be gained outside of actions that harm other players.

I don’t know if I’m explaining this right, I guess it’s the egomaniacal billionaire problem.

Can an agent’s productivity and contribution be augmented with automation/robotics?

Considering gamification of altruism is interesting, I’m still not sure how the goal is set. It seems like that’s the most important part to implement and many actors have different goals.

I can only imagine there are 100,000 people in line before me. So who gets chosen first? The reputation meter measures reputation but gives no privileges.

So is this the metric by how the “most useful” member of society is determined? And I’m assuming it’s unrelated to production, so it’s effectively a social credit (but not required for exchange). The end result is a… popularity contest, then? The Kardashians will (still) have a head start.

> Here is a practical example: You go to work and do what you do. You get what you usually buy. You just don't exchange money for all those activities. All that based on the assumption that we switched from ownership economy to usage economy.

> Corps transform into coops and life goes on as usual. Except you are no longer forced to work and can choose to do what you like or even change your activities ever so often. —— > The goal is the become the most useful member of society.

This absolutely makes no sense. I’m an introvert. My goal is to read as many books as I can and upkeep my living.

Anyways, I’m not showing up to work tomorrow. Who do I speak to to get gifted the 3D resin printer and computer upgrades I want?

Hayao Miyazaki disapproves of everything, including his own son. AI could get perfect grades and pay for humanity’s retirement and he still wouldn’t approve of it.