So.. we humans are never going to have total peace, are we? Yep, thought so. It’s about time I start accepting this fact.

How about waking up at 3 am nd just sitting there on the floor? No expectations, no meetings, no obligations, just peace

It is because you are smart enough to know that there will never be total peace.

You know what they say, "ignorance is bliss".

@alexbrooklyn questioning your existence.

I mean if you look at the stats, over the last centuries the amount of conflicts (wars) has significantly lowered. The only reason it feels so big is in most part due to the massive media coverage everything gets these days. But yeah a world totally at peace probably will never exist, a world without wars though…

@Earu nahh, the amount of conflicts didn't reduce, we just decided to drag it to social media instead of fighting it out on the field, I guess

@alexbrooklyn bro it’s so awesome when you just wake up at like 3am and it’s raining and you just kinda sit up in your bed and contemplate life in the most zen state you’ll ever be in

Remember to breath slow and deep.

When you huff paint to numb the pain of existence.

But all jokes aside, you sound like you have anxiety or something.

Have you looked into it? (If it's not too intrusive a question on my part)

Once the earth is lifeless there is no more wars (unless we manage to settle on Mars before that)

probably not a popular opinion, but peace leads to stagnation. Humans don't want to stagnate, so they stir shit up.

so no, there will never be total peace and honestly there shouldn't be. It would drive us all mad eventually.

@Hazarth you, I like you. You can stay. Let's be frens.

@Wisecrack

I already considered you a fren wisecrack!

It's usually chill convo when you're involved

@Hazarth It would be nice if we could have conflict with less suffering though.

Evacuate a few cities, give people a chance to pack bags with some photo albums, bring their laptops and pets with them.

Then have giant mecha robot fights which destroy half the city.

"Team purple won the territory war! You now live in Purple Country! VAT has been increased with 4%, and drug-fueled orgies are legal under Purple jurisdiction. Mangos are evil and prohibited by constitutional law. We apologize for the inconvenience of property damage caused by the 18-minute long casualty-free war, please submit form 76B to claim your mecha-battle insurance payout"

@bittersweet

sounds like a fun game, I would play it.

But when I imagine what you described IRL it's a bit creepy to me.

It sounds like we, normal people, are just puppets in some rich guys fun war over territory!

which yknow, we already kinda are, but that makes it even more obvious. You don't even get the freedom or security of owning a home! Any day the police can just come in and take you to safety by force because someones is planning a mechafight over the territory...

damn... That might be a fun movie. One of those dystopian future movies! :D

@Hazarth Yeah you're already only living by the grace of those with the weapons to defend their sovereignty. Laws don't protect people nor property without enforcement.

I think we should create all-powerful AI overlords to rule over the planet, which allow for war, but only according to certain universal rules which prevent suffering. Within that meta-jurisdictional framework, humans can then safely bash each other's heads in for the rights to territory, resources and policies, with their foam-padded clubs.

nope sorry even if we did the robot people would just keep doing the same things.

We can have total human peace. Only thing we have to do is wipe out all human life.

@Wisecrack I have always been an anxious person.

We will never have peace until we write a few more js unit test frameworks

@LiterallyJesus Coming from literally Jesus, that’s something.

Yes, accept it as a given, that technological evolution is a thousand years ahead of societal evolution.

@bittersweet Your suggestion of this pre-planned periodic war for some territorial and/or workforce gain somehow reminds me of the 1984's version of wars, where they are in a constant war, but their enemy and ally switch once in a while.

@Hazarth Related to peace and stagnation: I don't think is that simple.. maybe it's more of a cycle.

While the wars rages, technology is pushed faster and faster beyond its limits, while workforce and supply lines are reorganized and repurposed to maximize productivity. This indeed give a boost overall to many things, including economy, science and infrastructure.

But is not sustainable and burns through morale, resources and more importantly, lives, quite fast.

For this aspect, there is the peace periods, where advancements are repurposed to serve a less destructive goal, technologies go into mainstream (GPS for example), cultural and social aspects are improved and a lot more time and attention is invested into making sure that the workflows are truly optimal, efficient and safe.

It's just sad that we, as a species, have to go through both in order to stabilize our progress

this platform is just another feature in my environment that keeps me doing the same shit.

@KennyTheBard

I agree, that's a good way to put it. It's a cycle... or maybe I'd even go as far as describe it as a feedback loop specifically... long peace leads to war, and long war leads back to peace.

Though I disagree that it's sad. I think its part of living as a biological creature. Humans fighting humans, wolfs fighting wolfs, ants fighting ants. We do have common ancestors somewhere down the line, so it's not surprising that's how we are, and that's why I don't think it's sad either... it's just "normal" and nothing more nor less.

That's at least my opinion.

you know how I pictured human beings in a survival situation best case scenario ?
not lord of the flies.
more like people worked themselves to pitch in and then enjoyed the warmth of each others company

not this psycho trailer park shit occurring at every economic level when in well, comfort

we're piss poor and bizarre in our mediocre decadence.

@bittersweet do it. Write AI to improve governance. I'd be willing to join that company as either a junior dev or sales/marketing guy.

While a shitposter extraordinaire, and occasionally unbalanced lunatic, I also sometimes have real insights, and I can genuinely say that without bragging.

For example, the NLP model of language, e.x. distortions, deletions, and generalization, is an interesting possibility for classifying elements of AI systems.

One such example is deep fakes, based on GANs, which could be classified as a Distortion system.
Think of walking into a new apartment you just leased. You have maybe imagined where the furniture would go, the arrangements of it. Imagination is a form of distortion.

Deletion is another interesting one. Anything that filters out information is a deletion filter. Even some algorithms that DONT look like a deletion filter, if taken from another perspective, could very well be. One example is transformers as attention selection mechanisms

So you see, when you start with the right high level model, known algorithms and methods that are otherwise unorganized, begin to come into focus and you can begin to see how they may fit into clearly defined roles in larger systems.

@Hazarth

I like how you put it! And it's true that is weird to call.the natural cycle of things 'sad'.

But i still believe that it's sad that we weren't able to find a better outlet for our feedback loops, one that will not hurt so many innocent people.

@Wisecrack

I found this article quite interesting:
https://blog.einstein.ai/the-ai-eco...

Using AI to derive an income taxation model which is objectively superior at both optimizing productivity and equality.

Socialism is great for equality, but terrible for the overall economy, while libertarianism is amazing at boosting total wealth, but in a very inequal way.

So there is a certain optimum, and it can be derived by AI agents.

@bittersweet fascinating work to be sure.

I'd like to see the model with more parameters. Or better yet all the various known strategies to the prisoners dilemma, such as the ones illustrated here.

https://medium.com/thinking-is-hard...

I think a lot of models of human behavior dont provide for machiavellianism or mechanisms that allow it (e.x. bribery, blackmail, threats, extortion, collusion, cartelization, etc). Nor do they ever provide for mechanisms for actors to influence or alter the rules that govern the rules themselves (how policy is set in a simulation), which are all things humans attempt to influence. Bystander effect, strategy of the commons, and a whole host of other effects get left out. It complicates models for sure, but there has also been great progress on algorithms that produce *explainable* models.

Actors being able to influence system policy itself, I think is vitally important Avenue to explore.

Because it exposes system weaknesses. Leaky models, where actors can "anticipate" policy changes (in this case by simply being given priors, no use to go into anything more complicate than that), and then front run those changes, would also be useful, because as we know, part of what makes markets function is front running, and *anticipatory response strategies*.

@Wisecrack

Yeah crime in the next century will probably be adversary AI agents which find ways to trick the benevolent WorldGovAI to destabilize its "happiness optimization model" so more wealth/resources/happiness ends up at one specific person.

WorldGovAI suddenly finds an unexpected pocket of poverty, misery and disease in the world, not knowing it's being fed false information by CrimeAdversarialNet.

@Wisecrack

@bittersweet

this is some meta-shit you guys got into. Adversarial networks as a tool for crime in the future

I freakin' love the concept!

@bittersweet which is why its important to 1. have the most computing power, 2. model attempts at manipulation. As long as WorldGovAI is ahead of the curve on those two fronts, it hypothetically could stay ahead indefinitely, or until someone outside the system came up with something that hadnt been considered.

Regardless, the longest existing civilizations had what, 1k-2k lifespans?

I mean theres china, but I don't think they count because they've been through so much upheaval.

The trick is to give people systems that give them wide latitude, while not allowing a large bureaucratic state to develop and cause society to atrophy.

Of course Tthat doesn't account for existential risks or sub-existential risks, but those can always be hedged for through economic policies ("what if someone starts a giant-robot war and wipes out a major city? better have some risk model and tax policy/insurance that covers that!")