Skip to main content

Technological Agorism Part III: AI & the Agora

There are two types of artificial intelligence: the rules-based, & the neural network-based approach. To illustrate the differences, I'll borrow an example from AI blogger Janelle Shane's book, You Look Like A Thing & I Love You, & pretend we're training an AI to recognize dogs.



Using a rules-based approach, we’d create parameters which the AI would then use to determine whether or not the thing it’s looking at, is in fact a dog. Our rules would include things like “must have four legs” & “must have tail,” etc. When all of our conditions have been satisfied, the AI will recognize a dog.

With a neural network-based approach, we show the AI images of dogs & it learns to recognize patterns. The more pictures of dogs we show it, the more accurate the AI becomes. Nowadays, this is usually the preferred approach & will be the subject of this article.

The interesting thing about the neural-network approach to AI - as we’ve already noted, is its reliance …

Thinly veiled Tyranny


The sheep in the herd, the voters, are more than willing to hand out whips to anyone "in charge." Nobody is free from sin in a democratic environment and that kind of structure teaches participants to punish behavior you oppose by appealing to the structure itself. It is a weird practice. You can stick your nose in anyone's business without having to actually do much more than writing an e-mail or gather with like-minded around a digital campfire somewhere and hope some of it will reach the political class. 


"There should be a law!" Heard that one before?

The right-wing part of Swedish Twitter built a dog-pile over an article that a local Green Party politician wrote. An article where he had the audacity to suggest that parents rule over their children.[1]

When you hear it like that it doesn't make sense, right? Why would right-wingers be against that? Don't they understand parenting and parental rights in the Swedish conservative movement? Ah, but I intentionally left out the full range of the topic by choice. I only revealed the part I cared about. Here is the rest: It was about the be or not to be of veils (hijabs) on kids.

Once you see the full picture you get the outrage.

It is a lot easier to express "I don't like this, I want it gone!" through a proxy structure that does all the hard work for you than having to take the hard road of change through interacting with real human beings. Once the chain of command of the Government gets ahold of the idea and transforms it into a public prohibition that is supported by force and an unsympathetic system.

"We did it! We outlawed hijabs! We freed the children!"

You also made ski masks, diver suits, traditional folk dresses, bandanas and everything else you can think of that a kid could cover her hair with illegal, genius.


"Oh, snap. Ok, we can fix that with some revision. After all, there should be a law!"

And that is how a detail-controlling silly law meant to prevent behavior X is born and mutated into a monster of a law text. Linguistical experts sit down and try to write down magic and get nothing but tragedy. Or tyranny, if you will.

It is not what is on the head of children that is the issue. The issue is how it got there. Was it placed with force?

We already have a law against that. Even if you are not a fan of state-monopolist law, I am sure you can agree on that forcing someone (kid or not) to do something against their will is bad. I don't know a single person that would be okay with that, at face value. Granted, it is a lot harder to punish bad behavior through social means, but it is necessary to keep freedom as a concept living.

And then we have those that turn into little tyrants as soon as they see something they don't like and as a rule of thumb, I let those people play Stalin all by themselves.

- Alex Utopium.
Anti-Establishment blogger at Utopium. Living on a steady diet of coffee and whiskey. Want to lend a hand in the coffee department? Click here to send coffee money. Click here to send curse words.

-------------------------------
[1] You can read the article in question here - Text in Swedish.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Economics of BTC Maximalism

BTC maximalism is a flawed doctrine, fallacious in numerous respects. 

First, if you'd prefer to hear these arguments in audio, check out this recent episode of ABNP, where @mrpseu & I discused these same topics. 

Also, a qualifier: I'm not capable of making, defending or refuting technical arguments. I'll leave that aspect of the debate to others. My concerns with BTC maximalism are entirely economic and can be divided into four areas. 


Based on the criteria for saleability as laid out by the austrian school, BTC is not the most marketable digital commodity.A lack of portability relative to other cryptocurrencies implies BTC isn't as sound of a commodity. Value storage is a secondary function of money and cannot satisfy the use-value requirement of regression theorem. BTC maximalism lays waste to the Hayekian notion of competition as a discovery procedure. This final point was addressed in detail on episode 50 of The Agora, Crypto-Economics and thus, isn't elabor…

Global Warming & Economics

Libertarians who deny the existence of global warming run the risk of making us all look like a bunch of illiterate fools.

Much like economics, being ignorant of planetology or climate science isn't a crime, but having a "loud and vociferous" opinion on the subject while remaining in a state of ignorance can be a dangerous thing. And frankly, the science behind climate change is elementary.

Sunlight enters our atmosphere and warms our planet. Earth then gives off that heat in the form of infrared radiation (this is the same principle behind those cool goggles our collapsitarian friends have). However, and this is a crucial point - the CO₂ molecules in our atmosphere do not allow IR to easily escape back into space. This is known as the greenhouse effect. As the temperature of the planet increases, polar ice caps melt and eventually surface water will begin to evaporate. Since H₂0 also prevents IR from escaping our atmosphere, the additional water vapor only compounds th…

Don't Vote for Alex

It is 2019 and in Norway, that means county and city-election year. You can vote for me, but this article is all about why you really shouldn't. [1] There are several ways to say 'No'. This is a story about the time I said 'Yes', what I will stay positive to and what I will be negative toward. 

"But it is immoral to support politicians to oppress us because they might relieve us one oppression" - Samuel Edward Konkin III


First of all, there is some explaining to do: In my last article on the New Libertarian I argued that party politics is a waste of time and that you could use that time more productive so this entire piece seems like its contradicting that one. It might, that is up to you to judge for yourself (and if you want a chat I'm very approachable on Twitter), but in my defense, I will highlight two things:

One: I'm not against solution-finding, culture-building or exchange of ideas. I can give no brighter example of this happening than the…