SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Algorithms tell you how to vote. Algorithms can revoke your driver’s license and terminate your disability benefits. Algorithms predict crimes. Algorithms ensured you didn’t hear about #FreddieGray on Twitter. Algorithms are everywhere, and, to hear critics, they are trouble. What’s the problem? Critics allege that algorithms are opaque, automatic, emotionless, and impersonal, and that they separate decision-makers from the consequences of their actions. Algorithms cannot appreciate the context of structural discrimination, are trained on flawed datasets, and are ruining lives everywhere. There needs to be algorithmic accountability. Otherwise, who is to blame when a computational process suddenly deprives someone of his or her rights and livelihood?
But at heart, criticism of algorithmic decision-making makes an age-old argument about impersonal, automatic corporate and government bureaucracy. The machine like bureaucracy has simply become the machine. Instead of a quest for accountability, much of the rhetoric and discourse about algorithms amounts to a surrender—an unwillingness to fight the ideas and bureaucratic logic driving the algorithms that critics find so creepy and problematic. Algorithmic transparency and accountability can only be achieved if critics understand that transparency (no modifier is needed) is the issue. If the problem is that a bureaucratic system is impersonal, unaccountable, creepy, and has a flawed or biased decision criteria, then why fetishize and render mysterious the mere mechanical instrument of the system’s will ?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Gravis on Thursday May 21 2015, @03:14PM
our entire society and in turn government is based on money which is bad because money is used to manipulate the government and in turn fucks over our society in order for the rich to get more money. it's a bad scheme altogether that rewards the rich based on how badly they can manipulate people and the government using money. it's a vicious cycle that breeds the worst possible humans and we need to get rid of it. we are at the point where the choice to automate is based on how much money is required. what if we just remove money from the equation and just made everything machines automated completely free? this would require a paradigm shift toward 100% recycling, 0% pollution and 100% open designs (for everything) but jobs would become voluntary. it's not a perfect system but what we have now is just cruel and it's failing badly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2015, @03:31PM
Can I have a unicorn too?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2015, @03:59PM
I see your utopian system (and thus, by my choice of words, you can see that I, too, would think that is a better place to be in) but who's paying for the power and raw materials of those machines? Who's paying for making the machines? Who's paying for designing the machines or the machines that make the machines?
(Score: 3, Funny) by SubiculumHammer on Thursday May 21 2015, @05:25PM
Suppose an uber rich dude gave me a replicator robot. This robot first works a job and earns money for me This pays for raw materials. Each month this robot has the materials to replicate itself. I now have two robots. After a month I have over 1024 replicator robots working for me. 100 robots set out to build me a sweet house. 100 robots build a farm and raise food for me. 100 robots build furniture. 100 robots build an awesome swimming pool with a waterfall. 100 robots shop, clean, and cook food for me and my massive pool parties. 100 robots then give me massages, cut my hair and wipe my butt. 100 robots guard the perimeter of my property. 100 robots tailor my clothe me and my army. 100 robots do my doctoring and lawyering. 100 robots are maintain my robot army's good operation.
The final 24 robots are unemployed hippies. Lazy turds.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2015, @05:27PM
Damn it: Should have read after 10 months, not after a month.
Can we please have editing capabilities when our Karma is really high?
(Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday May 21 2015, @05:29PM
everyone, and everyone profits from it instead it all being consolidated into private hands. naturally this means socialism or even, god-forbid, communism. we know capitalism is broken, we know its endgame, and its not pretty unless you're part of the 0.1%, so we should be working on figuring out how to make things better instead of just throwing up our hands saying "Its too hard!" or saying "Fuck you, its not my problem". even if you're part of the 0.1%, it will be your problem when the hungry masses you created through relentless exploitation come your way with torches and pitchforks.
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Thursday May 21 2015, @07:05PM
Each cycle of the 'rise and fall of X' we have had to go through, those in power are absolutely sure that they have it figured out and won't fail, as did the previous bunch before them...ad nauseum.
From the perspective of those of us at the bottom 30%, it is brutal at best, and hellish on the 'down' cycle. The only thing I can figure, is that it has not gotten bad enough for most yet, or they have not realized how bad it is(drank the kool-aide). I don't really know.
Maybe it will take a near-extinction event, or extraterrestrial invasion, or some other dramatic event for us to finally break this cycle. Even then, I find it hard to believe it could happen as long as religion and nationalism exist.
I agree that some form of socialism and communism would be the way to go in an ideal world, but that would require everyone to be agreeable and cooperative.
I just can't imagine that world as I remember my life experiences, look around me, and read/watch the news.
What I find uncomfortable thinking about, is some of the similarities and parallels(social, cultural, and political) between Germany in the 1930's, and the USA this past 15 years. I by no means suggest or imply that we(USA) are turning into Nazi Germany...I'm not. Just some of the similar things and progressions are worth noting and scrutinizing, so as not to head that way unknowingly.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 23 2015, @01:15AM
it will be your problem when the hungry masses you created through relentless exploitation come your way with torches and pitchforks.
Unless, you know, the 0.1% move and you find that you can't swim a couple thousand miles with a torch and pitchfork in your mouth. The hypothetically apathetic 0.1% are right. They don't have to care about you when they can hop on a plane and put you well behind them.
While I'm sure there's some legitimate blame for this supposed 0.1%, let us recall that it's your society. If that society becomes overridden with the "hungry masses", then it's your fault especially since you're advocating dismantling one of the primary tools for curing such problems, capitalism.
Further, exploitation is not somehow magically associated with capitalism. It is a key aspect of all human societies. We exist in the first place because our ancestors both exploited others and were useful to others. Cooperation which is the core of human society is mutual exploitation to mutual advantage.
Further, there is a huge amount of built-in fail to the idea that a lot of the problems are the fault of one in a thousand people and that somehow if those people change their attitudes or perhaps, we take their stuff, then everything will be much better. It won't. They simply don't have enough to make much of a difference.
Finally, the great irony is that this situation will eventually sort itself out. All this silly angst exists in the first place because of globalization and the vast amount of cheap human labor out there. Once most of those societies reach near parity with developed world labor, then the 0.1% problem will magically disappear as developed world labor resumes its centuries long climb. What is happening here is that global circumstances just happen in the developed world to favor owners of capital (which happens to be where the wealth of the 0.1% is located) over those whose wealth comes from labor. When that changes, then the perceived problems go away, just like they have in the past.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday May 23 2015, @01:53PM
i always see this bullshit FUD from conservatives, and anyone who actually believes it is a total moron, incapable of thinking for themselves and just repeating the bullshit fed to them by the handful of people hoarding 99% of the world's wealth. non-capitalistic economies do not involve "tak[ing] their stuff". sharing profit among all the workers in a company (socialism) is not and never will be "stealing wealth by force". that you think it is shows your ignorance and misunderstanding.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 25 2015, @01:51AM
or perhaps, we take their stuff
i always see this bullshit FUD from conservatives
I see this FUD from a lot of places. There's always someone greatly concerned about "greed", a thing which magically sprung up like a mushroom in the past few decades and completely explains the current problems whatever they happen to be. The problem always is someone who has more stuff than they do.
sharing profit among all the workers in a company (socialism) is not and never will be "stealing wealth by force"
Yea, we call it "wages". But I find it interesting how the people who speak of "sharing profit" never seen to realize that it is already universally done in capitalist societies.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday May 25 2015, @02:18AM
red herring, has nothing to do with my statement.
not the problem at all.
i'll never understand how having a bunch of money but doing no actual work magically entitles one to earn $7308+/hr [epi.org] (not to mention straight stealing from their employees [epi.org]), but the people who actually do all the work don't even deserve to earn enough to live with any dignity. making >1000x more than everyone who works for your company, the people responsible for everything your company actually does, is not sharing profit in any way, its exploitation. so no, the sharing of profit is not universally done in capitalist societies. the facts do not agree with that statement.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 26 2015, @03:21AM
i'll never understand how having a bunch of money but doing no actual work magically entitles one to earn $7308+/hr
Who would pay someone that kind of money with expecting something in return? The answer to this conundrum is in who is actually deciding on those CEOs. They aren't working for you.
And if a CEO were actually worth 1000x more to me than the rest of the employees, then I would pay that CEO more too.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday May 28 2015, @06:36PM
the workers are the ones directly responsible for the company's success; they're the ones actually doing everything. a good leader is plenty valuable, yes, but a good leader recognizes just how valuable his subordinates are. i don't have a problem with managers being paid more than their subordinates, its the ratio of subordinate pay:manager pay thats the problem. pretty much everything stems from the fucked up view of 'short-term profits over all else' that we have now; cutting worker pay and benefits to raise CEO pay and dumb shit like that is creating a negative feedback loop that will destroy the companies themselves, but of course the people doing it don't care because they'll have everything they need, so its "not [their] problem".
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 04 2015, @06:28PM
the workers are the ones directly responsible for the company's success
And why is that supposed to be important? The people making the decisions don't have an interest in a successful company. It's just not important to them. That's why they can, again and again, pick terrible people and gain by it.
its the ratio of subordinate pay:manager pay thats the problem. pretty much everything stems from the fucked up view of 'short-term profits over all else' that we have now
Ever wonder where "short term profits over all else" came from? It didn't used to be that focusing on short term profits was that viable a strategy.
My take is that society got rid of most of the long term risks and in the process, they got rid of most of the incentive to make good long term decisions.
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Thursday May 21 2015, @04:55PM
If jobs become voluntary, why would anyone want to work? Who would maintain the automated machines? Capitalism may have its drawbacks, but at least there's opportunity.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2015, @05:00PM
> If jobs become voluntary, why would anyone want to work?
Because sitting on your ass all day long gets boring.
Some people enjoy the sense of accomplishment.
As the saying goes, "Find something you love to do and you’ll never have to work a day in your life."
(Score: 2) by SubiculumHammer on Thursday May 21 2015, @05:10PM
Maintenance machines will maintain other machines. Maintenance machines will even maintain other maintenance machines.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday May 21 2015, @07:04PM
Maintenance machines will maintain other machines. Maintenance machines will even maintain other maintenance machines.
It's maintenance machines all the way down!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2015, @05:11PM
For prestige. For fun. For not knowing what else to do. If all jobs are voluntary, there will no longer be jobs that are looked down upon. Instead of "oh, he's so poor he must serve burgers to survive" it would be "oh, he's so noble that he even goes serving burgers despite not having to do it."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tathra on Thursday May 21 2015, @05:21PM
why wouldn't people want to work? nobody likes working now because its required in order to survive - no job means no food or shelter or clothing or utilities or anything. take away the requirement and you'll find people will start enjoying work because they'll be able to choose the work they want to do, exploring their passions and starting businesses and such, instead of having to settle for whatever bullshit starvation-wage-paying dead-end shit work they can get just so they don't starve to death, like we have now.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday May 21 2015, @06:47PM
So you're saying Free software definitely doesn't exist?
In a world where money isn't useful to you and it won't be any extra work, why not freely share the solution you come up with to your own problem that others might also have?
If a friend has a problem, people routinely help now, even if it involves back breaking physical labor.
Start with the basic income, work up from there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2015, @07:02PM
Capitalism may have its drawbacks, but at least there's opportunity.
This is a common misconception about socialism. Eliminating the bottom line doesn't mean eliminating incentive, it just ensures you'll never hit rock bottom.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 22 2015, @03:53AM
our entire society and in turn government is based on money which is bad because money is used to manipulate the government and in turn fucks over our society in order for the rich to get more money.
Our entire society is based on breathing air too. Guess we better ban that before the evil air breathers fuck over our society.
There are two things to note here. First, money is incredibly useful and we are all better for having that tool present in our society. If your country banned money, it would become a nation of lawbreakers inside of a year just due to the use of illegal currencies.
Second, as with all such completely misguided policies, this affects the poor far more than it would affect the powerful or the wealthy. After all, money is just a medium of exchange, power is the actual good of considerable value which doesn't go away just because someone banned money. In other words, this would just make the problems you care about worse. The wealthy and powerful would just get wealthier and more powerful because they have even more control over trade and what resources the rest of us have access to. Nothing will become free.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday May 22 2015, @05:41PM
i think you might've misunderstood the argument. i don't think he's suggesting to do away with money entirely, it is indeed far too useful, and something will always exist as an abstract holder of value, so 'getting rid of money' would be an exercise in futility. we do, however, need to get money out of the government; its a means to an end, not an end itself, which is what it has become. somehow we need to reduce the view of money as an end. i'm pretty sure thats what the GP was getting at, and his naive suggestion to "get rid of money" was just the first thing that came to mind to do that.
sometimes you have to understand what somebody means despite the exact words they use. you have to look at the overall idea of what they mean rather than getting pedantically stuck on their wordchoice.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 23 2015, @12:23AM
we do, however, need to get money out of the government
But that's not going to happen either just due to taxes and the value of government services provided (including illegal ones). But of course, I'm taking your word choice literally. Even if we took your words in the weak sense of capping what people can contribute to a political campaign, an action which has already been done, we still have the matter of who will pay for campaigns and the right (such as in the US) of people to spend money to have their voices heard. Further, I think a lot of the spending in politics is of the status signalling sort. For example, George Soros and the Koch brothers are rather notorious for their political spending, but not for the success of their political spending, if you get my drift. I think this sort of political spending is an effective way to part the extremely wealthy from part of the burden of their wealth.
sometimes you have to understand what somebody means despite the exact words they use. you have to look at the overall idea of what they mean rather than getting pedantically stuck on their wordchoice.
But those words are all we have to go off of. And sometimes they mean what they say. I believe this is one such case. There are some people who really buy into the "money is the root of all evil" meme to the point that they think they can get rid of evil by getting rid of money. And frankly, I'm not even remotely off base in my original comment. Keep in mind the following quotes from the original poster:
our entire society and in turn government is based on money which is bad
or
what if we just remove money from the equation and just made everything machines automated completely free?
or
this would require a paradigm shift toward 100% recycling, 0% pollution and 100% open designs (for everything) but jobs would become voluntary. it's not a perfect system but what we have now is just cruel and it's failing badly.
The poster is in full utopia mode. He or she is definitely thinking of the entirety of society, not just the government of society.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday May 23 2015, @01:11AM
there's nothing wrong with wanting a utopia. its probably impossible, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
yeah, i know that words used are all we have to go by, but not everyone is great at communicating, and even if the specific thing they suggest is impossible or just absurdly naive, that doesn't make the reasoning behind it bad, just that they don't have a full understanding of the actual problem, of all the potential solutions, or of all the consequences of those solutions (its impossible for any one person to know everything). pedantry is a huge barrier to real conversation because many people assign different definitions to the same words - for example, extremist liberals define "conservative" the same way extremist conservatives define "liberal", "communist", "socialist", etc: "evil, tyrannical scumbags who hate freedom" (or something like that, you get the gist) - and if you get hung up on the specific words you miss the big picture and cut short the chances to find common ground and understanding. now, you shouldnt put words into people's mouths either, but there's nothing productive about shutting down a conversation about a real problem simply because an impossible or absurdly naive solution was suggested.
its generally agreed that there is a problem, but pinning down the actual, specific problem is difficult, as is finding solutions; rather than dismissing naive, idealistic solutions out of hand (typically accompanied with insulting the suggester), its more productive to build from it something more realistic and explain why the original suggestion is no good - this too is probably hopelessly naive and idealistic, but the idea and reasoning behind it is solid. the more people understand whats behind the suggestion the better chance we have of getting a real solution.
sorry, i'm rambling a bit and not even sure where i wanted to go with this, so i hope you're able to understand what i'm wanting to get at and not getting stuck on the specific words i'm using. ;)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 23 2015, @01:45AM
there's nothing wrong with wanting a utopia. its probably impossible, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
Actually being impossible is a good reason to not try. It's not the only reason in vacuum, but it shouldn't be ignored. And relevant to this particular proposal, I've seen a couple of cases where currencies were completely inadequate for trade (hyperinflation and in the second case, just not being useful enough to be worth trading). The traders didn't just give up and barter or whatever. Instead, they quickly found a new good to trade as currency and moved on.
even if the specific thing they suggest is impossible or just absurdly naive, that doesn't make the reasoning behind it bad, just that they don't have a full understanding of the actual problem, of all the potential solutions, or of all the consequences of those solutions (its impossible for any one person to know everything)
But being absurdly naive or advocating the impossible (especially both at the same time) strongly correlates with bad reasoning.
I think I see where you're going with this and obviously, I have imperfect capabilities as well, but I still think my original judgment, even though on the basis of a single post, was correct.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday May 23 2015, @02:07PM
well, that i agree with, but basically what i mean is that you should still strive to reach the ideal, even if reaching the ideal itself is impossible. get as close to it as possible; take the impossible suggestions and build something possible from them. its not currently possible for humans to regrow limbs, so by your thinking we should just throw up our hands and give up on people with amputations - sucks you lost your limb, guess you're fucked buddy, enjoy being a cripple for the rest of your life! - my thinking is that we should do whatever we can to as closely approximate giving them their limb back (eg, prosthetics), and that we don't really know that something is impossible until we try and actually start working towards it; it might appear impossible now but once we start working on it, human ingenuity can come up with some pretty impressive things (continuing the prosthetics analogy, we're getting close to being able to connect nerves to prosthetics, with artificial skin and muscles, basically fully restoring all of the lost limb's functionality, something we'd never do if we just gave up and never even tried since its impossible for humans to regrow limbs, and we're getting close to figuring out how to regenerate or grow new limbs - striving for impossible ideals, despite them seeming impossible or being impossible at the time, can give you close approximations to the impossible goal, or even lead to finding out that its not truly impossible).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 25 2015, @02:01AM
but basically what i mean is that you should still strive to reach the ideal, even if reaching the ideal itself is impossible
Unless the ideal is unworthy of the striving or the cost of the striving makes it a bad deal. Striving for an unattainable goal pretty is a huge part of what science is about, for example. Most people would think our scientific progress was indeed worth considerable effort despite not meeting the ideal. OTOH, the voluntary human extinction movement strives for the ideal of the extinction of humanity which I think is an unworthy goal. Then there's the parable of the paper clip optimizer, a hypothetical machine which strives to turn the universe into as many paperclips as possible. Paperclips are indeed valuable, but not at the price of turning the entire universe into paperclips.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday May 25 2015, @02:34AM
well, yeah, but who is to decide which ideals are worthy and which aren't? too many people believe that the only ideals worth striving for are ones that directly benefit them and noone else, or even ones that directly harm others. the ideals we should be striving for are the ones which benefit the most people possible, or ideally everyone. imo we should be striving for ideals which have the largest benefit for the largest number of people, even if the initial cost is ridiculously high. unfortunately this requires people, specifically the people with power, to think of more than just themselves, but "powerful" and "selfless" are practically mutually exclusive. its a pretty sad state of affairs that so few people can think of more than just themselves, despite the whole concept of society having to do with pooling strengths and resources for mutual benefit (not that everything that each person has should be shared, but if one person is hoarding all of 99% of something, depriving everyone else of it and never giving anyone else a chance to earn any of it, thats a huge problem; having more than others is fine, having all of it is not; where the line lies specifically can be up for debate, but there is definitely a point where "more" becomes "too much").
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 26 2015, @03:51AM
well, yeah, but who is to decide which ideals are worthy and which aren't?
Fortunately, I was here to step to the plate with reason and actual real world examples to explain was wrong with the ideal in question.
too many people believe that the only ideals worth striving for are ones that directly benefit them and noone else, or even ones that directly harm others. the ideals we should be striving for are the ones which benefit the most people possible, or ideally everyone. imo we should be striving for ideals which have the largest benefit for the largest number of people, even if the initial cost is ridiculously high.
I agree to some degree. But the cost matters here. If it is ridiculously high, then there should be a clearly defined near future benefit of corresponding size to go with it. Otherwise, why not just do prudent economic decisions for a few generations and try again later when you're much more wealthy and more technologically able to implement the ideal in a quicker time frame?
unfortunately this requires people, specifically the people with power, to think of more than just themselves, but "powerful" and "selfless" are practically mutually exclusive.
It doesn't. If your ideal relies on selfless people in power, you are doing it wrong and need to take that plan back to the drawing board.
not that everything that each person has should be shared, but if one person is hoarding all of 99% of something, depriving everyone else of it and never giving anyone else a chance to earn any of it, thats a huge problem; having more than others is fine, having all of it is not; where the line lies specifically can be up for debate, but there is definitely a point where "more" becomes "too much"
How did that happen? Hoarding without substitute goods available doesn't just happen. Odds are good the real problem here is a corruption of a political system. I don't want to get libertarian here, but massive hoarding usually requires guns to obtain and keep competitors away. And if you're paying for the guns yourself, then you're having to pay for it out of your hoard. So I find a lot of these schemes are based on corruptly obtaining military or legal force paid for with other peoples' money (or the equivalent political barter in the original poster's non-money world). If you have the power to take the hoard away, then you have the power to change the system so that the hoarding isn't profitable in the first place. Maybe you should do that instead?
(Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday May 28 2015, @06:23PM
i agree. as always, a cost:benefit analysis should be done; if the cost is too high but could realistically be significantly lower in 5-20 years, then the benefits of waiting and implementing later probably outweigh the cost if beginning implementation immediately. that time shouldn't just be wasted though, ideally it should be used to refine the plan and decide on a solid starting point, ie, the cost reaches a specific amount or x years have past, whichever comes first, otherwise you can end up with indefinite procrastination.
the check was supposed to be "give the power to the people", but that has been subverted over generations by tricking people to vote against their own interests, not to mention gerrymandering, bigotry/xenophobia (eg, "its worth sacrificing this if it hurts the group i hate more"), the destruction of the education system, etc.
this, too, happened over generations. inheriting over and over again, never touching the principal and living off the interest alone, and re-investing the interest while growing the principal, and over generations it just kept growing, until it reached the point where it could be used to start buying representatives and the government. the problem is definitely corruption of the political system, but it was only corruptible as soon as it was due to such large amounts of money being consolidated by individuals (its always possible it would've been corrupted anyway further down the line, but having hundreds of billions onhand directly enabled it).
its a complicated problem and there's no easy fix, and since its complicated its easy to distract people from even realizing there is a problem by oversimplifying it. the first step is getting enough people to acknowledge there's a problem, but the perceived livelihood of the ones at the root of the problem depends on them not acknowledging and understanding it and not letting others acknowledge or understand it. people need to come together and start to work out a solution that benefits all before inequality pushes things to the point of collapse; and coming together to work on it is the important part! lots of people on the left probably do think of the government as a blunt tool, thinking the solution is just to raise taxation, but if somebody on the right has a better, more favorable solution overall like, say, incentivizing the creation of cooperatives, thats something a leftist might never think of but would probably work a lot better than just taxing the hell out of the wealthy. these ideas need to be shared and debated instead of just stopping at, "we don't agree so fuck you".