You’re saying value converges on money correct? Money is indeed a notion that humans have invented in order to exchange things that we individually value. Having more money lets you get more of things you value. This is all good and fine. But “converges” and “has converged upon” are very different things.
I’m also not sure what it would look like for money to “be” value. A bad person can use money to do something horrible, something that no other person on earth approves of. A bad person can destroy immense value by buying a bomb, for example.
This is all the respect Nash’s Ideal money gets on this forum? He spent 20 years on the proposal. I think that is shameful and disrespectful.
Anyways, no. I am saying that “we” all converge on money. We all agree on it, that is the nature of it. And it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that so would (intelligent (and super bad)) AI be able to. And (so) it would because that is the obviously rational thing to do (I mean to show that Nash’s argument explains why this is).
It would help move things along if you would just lay out your argument rather than intimating that you have a really great argument that nobody will listen to. Just spell it out, or link to it if you’ve done so elsewhere.
“In our society, this common currency of expected utilons is called “money”. It is the measure of how much society cares about something.”
“This is a brutal yet obvious point, which many are motivated to deny.”
“With this audience, I hope, I can simply state it and move on.”
Yes but only to an extent. If we start to spend the heck out of our money to incite a care bear care-a-thon, we would only be destroying what we have worked for. Rather, it is other causes that allow spending to either be a measure or not of caring.
So I don’t like the way the essay ends.
Furthermore, it is more to the point to say it is reasonable that we all care about money and so will AI. That is the nature of money, it is intrinsic to it.
This is a dialogue. We are dialoguing.
You’re saying value converges on money correct? Money is indeed a notion that humans have invented in order to exchange things that we individually value. Having more money lets you get more of things you value. This is all good and fine. But “converges” and “has converged upon” are very different things.
I’m also not sure what it would look like for money to “be” value. A bad person can use money to do something horrible, something that no other person on earth approves of. A bad person can destroy immense value by buying a bomb, for example.
This is all the respect Nash’s Ideal money gets on this forum? He spent 20 years on the proposal. I think that is shameful and disrespectful.
Anyways, no. I am saying that “we” all converge on money. We all agree on it, that is the nature of it. And it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that so would (intelligent (and super bad)) AI be able to. And (so) it would because that is the obviously rational thing to do (I mean to show that Nash’s argument explains why this is).
It would help move things along if you would just lay out your argument rather than intimating that you have a really great argument that nobody will listen to. Just spell it out, or link to it if you’ve done so elsewhere.
It was removed by a mod.
It should still be in your drafts. Just copy it here.
Yup so I can get banned. I didn’t expect this place to be like this.
Just send it to me as a private message.
You mean Money is the Unit of Caring ? :)
“In our society, this common currency of expected utilons is called “money”. It is the measure of how much society cares about something.”
“This is a brutal yet obvious point, which many are motivated to deny.”
“With this audience, I hope, I can simply state it and move on.”
Yes but only to an extent. If we start to spend the heck out of our money to incite a care bear care-a-thon, we would only be destroying what we have worked for. Rather, it is other causes that allow spending to either be a measure or not of caring.
So I don’t like the way the essay ends.
Furthermore, it is more to the point to say it is reasonable that we all care about money and so will AI. That is the nature of money, it is intrinsic to it.