I’m less hopeful than sweenesm seems to be. I doubt that reformatting or reorganizaing with section headers will reveal a useful thesis or reasonable points of debate/discussion. I can’t tell if there’s a coherent model in there somewhere, or if it’s just crazed ranting, because the inferential distance from normal LessWrong posts is quite a bit too much for me to decode it.
One example—you seem quite against “usury”, but the definition is unclear and maybe encompasses all of currency and trade. Or just parts that you don’t like? I really don’t know, and the text gives weird fictional examples that don’t seem believable to me, and don’t show the boundaries of your ideas nor anything about how to transition from current ideas.
edit: I’m sorry this is harsh. I wanted to explain my downvote, and to try to warn you that the suggestions of the only other commenter may not be sufficient to make it clear enough to engage well on LessWrong.
For a version without the crazed ranting, or a lot less of it, try his post on Medium here. I can’t be sure that it makes more sense, as the writer, there and here, has a truckload of concepts that he is too impatient to bother explaining. It’s a stream of consciousness, not an argument.
His posting here is basically that Medium article, topped with an intro of crazed ranting and tailed with a plea for AI people to get involved. It’s not clear to me what AI has to do with it. Neither it is clear to me how I would obtain a loaf of bread under his system.
I am not crazed ranting. I am giving a logical argument for why changing the currency type is essential for any substantiative change. It is your problem if you can″t see that. It’s an hour long read. If I was ranting, would you not think I would be more in your face? And I do not point to one article. I point to my site give you alternate options to read different ways I have tried to explain the point, some shorter articles, some longer. But all point to the value of creating sustainably based on excellence, not ethics.
Your last line says it all. You are a stupid idiot with no foresight who can’t see passed what you want today. So this is not for your consideration. You are too small. For you to even say ‘crazed ranting’ twice just shows how fucking stupid you are. Mindless. Are you voting for Trump? I am just checking … because you sure as hell can’t comprehend anything, even if you read, which is unlikely.
I wrote on this LW because, I had hoped, to reach some truly intelligent people who are interested in solving solutions for the greater good. I came here because Connor Leahy was truly worried about AI taking over humanity, and i gave an argument for a solution outside what sadly has been realised as your blinkered way of thinking. J know that the moderators do want effective content on this platform. My initial passionate ‘rant’, if you want to call it that, was rejected, and so I made a more formidable argument.
But saying I am telling you to go to an ‘article’ on Medium is stupid. You didn’t check. You don’ think. You are just proved that in spite of all the access to knowledge you all have, or could have, which it seems you don’t have, otherwise you wouldn’t be this dumb, you thank I am just peddling something. Why would I bother doing that here for? And you wonder what AI has to do with changing the world for the greater good? You stupid idiot.
Just make sure you get white bread. Anything else for you would just be wasted. You stupid fucking mindless coward. Cowards, because all you seem to be pathetic. My mistake.
Every time I read this comment, I can’t believe the entitled ignorant stupidity of it. I did not say I am a genius. I gave perceived scenarios as I see it in transitioning, but offered how AI may see options. I am doing my best. Empty ignorant critique is useless,, no? I did explain the transition, if you read. You are in your tiny boxes for how to use AI for the greater good, those that care about that at least, with Connor Leahy going nuts over Ai overtaking the world, but with what framework, and can we change it? We won’t, can’t change the framework without changing the currency type. We got to start somewhere. If you don’t find it believable, that’s fine, but you don’t understand BX, do you, so how the fck can you find any of the scenarios believable, even as a stepping stone to make them better? So, thanks, but you need to think first, no? But we reached your limit. So move along. Nothing to see here. Have a nice day.
You should read it. I define what usury is. Any cost on currency. I can’t disagree on parts of usury. that is stupid, would you not think? I am not ranting. yes, what I am writing is outside what is usually on Les Wrong, but do you want to be in little boxes or think outside it? Your automatic judgement of thinking of my article as an object misses the point. How on Earth could you think I could be so stupid as to think it is only parts of usury I do not like?
Man, if you do not know to read it, forget it. I couldn’t care less if you want to judge and not think. Jesus, I got −22 karma! Fck, I had no idea all you people would so closed minded. it is incredible. Obviously al you AI gurus aren’t using AI to expands your minds. Therein lies the problem.
Your limitation if you don’t want to understand it.
What do I mean by usury and if I don’t like parts of it. What a fucking dumb thing to even say. Read, or go somewhere else. I am not here to be stupid, nor deal with stupidity.
For all the knowledge you all have access to, you all sure as hell are fucking stupid.
‘By the way, I define usury in its original meaning: that it is any cost on currency, not the updated definition of an exorbitant cost on currency.’
Did you miss that? Read. Don’t like parts of usury? It’s all usury, ao how the fuck could not like just parts of it? What a fucking dumb thing to say.
I’m less hopeful than sweenesm seems to be. I doubt that reformatting or reorganizaing with section headers will reveal a useful thesis or reasonable points of debate/discussion. I can’t tell if there’s a coherent model in there somewhere, or if it’s just crazed ranting, because the inferential distance from normal LessWrong posts is quite a bit too much for me to decode it.
One example—you seem quite against “usury”, but the definition is unclear and maybe encompasses all of currency and trade. Or just parts that you don’t like? I really don’t know, and the text gives weird fictional examples that don’t seem believable to me, and don’t show the boundaries of your ideas nor anything about how to transition from current ideas.
edit: I’m sorry this is harsh. I wanted to explain my downvote, and to try to warn you that the suggestions of the only other commenter may not be sufficient to make it clear enough to engage well on LessWrong.
For a version without the crazed ranting, or a lot less of it, try his post on Medium here. I can’t be sure that it makes more sense, as the writer, there and here, has a truckload of concepts that he is too impatient to bother explaining. It’s a stream of consciousness, not an argument.
His posting here is basically that Medium article, topped with an intro of crazed ranting and tailed with a plea for AI people to get involved. It’s not clear to me what AI has to do with it. Neither it is clear to me how I would obtain a loaf of bread under his system.
I am not crazed ranting. I am giving a logical argument for why changing the currency type is essential for any substantiative change. It is your problem if you can″t see that. It’s an hour long read. If I was ranting, would you not think I would be more in your face? And I do not point to one article. I point to my site give you alternate options to read different ways I have tried to explain the point, some shorter articles, some longer. But all point to the value of creating sustainably based on excellence, not ethics.
Your last line says it all. You are a stupid idiot with no foresight who can’t see passed what you want today. So this is not for your consideration. You are too small. For you to even say ‘crazed ranting’ twice just shows how fucking stupid you are. Mindless. Are you voting for Trump? I am just checking … because you sure as hell can’t comprehend anything, even if you read, which is unlikely.
I wrote on this LW because, I had hoped, to reach some truly intelligent people who are interested in solving solutions for the greater good. I came here because Connor Leahy was truly worried about AI taking over humanity, and i gave an argument for a solution outside what sadly has been realised as your blinkered way of thinking. J know that the moderators do want effective content on this platform. My initial passionate ‘rant’, if you want to call it that, was rejected, and so I made a more formidable argument.
But saying I am telling you to go to an ‘article’ on Medium is stupid. You didn’t check. You don’ think. You are just proved that in spite of all the access to knowledge you all have, or could have, which it seems you don’t have, otherwise you wouldn’t be this dumb, you thank I am just peddling something. Why would I bother doing that here for? And you wonder what AI has to do with changing the world for the greater good? You stupid idiot.
Just make sure you get white bread. Anything else for you would just be wasted. You stupid fucking mindless coward. Cowards, because all you seem to be pathetic. My mistake.
Every time I read this comment, I can’t believe the entitled ignorant stupidity of it. I did not say I am a genius. I gave perceived scenarios as I see it in transitioning, but offered how AI may see options. I am doing my best. Empty ignorant critique is useless,, no? I did explain the transition, if you read. You are in your tiny boxes for how to use AI for the greater good, those that care about that at least, with Connor Leahy going nuts over Ai overtaking the world, but with what framework, and can we change it? We won’t, can’t change the framework without changing the currency type. We got to start somewhere. If you don’t find it believable, that’s fine, but you don’t understand BX, do you, so how the fck can you find any of the scenarios believable, even as a stepping stone to make them better? So, thanks, but you need to think first, no? But we reached your limit. So move along. Nothing to see here. Have a nice day.
You should read it. I define what usury is. Any cost on currency. I can’t disagree on parts of usury. that is stupid, would you not think? I am not ranting. yes, what I am writing is outside what is usually on Les Wrong, but do you want to be in little boxes or think outside it? Your automatic judgement of thinking of my article as an object misses the point. How on Earth could you think I could be so stupid as to think it is only parts of usury I do not like?
Man, if you do not know to read it, forget it. I couldn’t care less if you want to judge and not think. Jesus, I got −22 karma! Fck, I had no idea all you people would so closed minded. it is incredible. Obviously al you AI gurus aren’t using AI to expands your minds. Therein lies the problem.
Your limitation if you don’t want to understand it.
What do I mean by usury and if I don’t like parts of it. What a fucking dumb thing to even say. Read, or go somewhere else. I am not here to be stupid, nor deal with stupidity.
For all the knowledge you all have access to, you all sure as hell are fucking stupid.
‘By the way, I define usury in its original meaning: that it is any cost on currency, not the updated definition of an exorbitant cost on currency.’
Did you miss that? Read. Don’t like parts of usury? It’s all usury, ao how the fuck could not like just parts of it? What a fucking dumb thing to say.
The entitled dumbness just seems endless …