Hacker News Reader

> lacking in human morality simply because it isn't human.

You seem to be under the impression that humans would do the right thing. This claim is repeated without justification. In fact, the claim is ridiculous on its face because corporations are certainly human, given that they are run, operated, and staffed by human beings. Claiming them to be 'not human' is simply copping out facing the depraved reality of human existence.

except we already know that in groups, people act differently than they would individually.

the GP statement is, by that argument, strictly correct. 'composed of' humans is not the same as 'being' human.

He did go on to say, this exposes the weakness in society, which is a collection of humans.

I think you're debating semantic here. Everything can be reduced to "it's just human nature". That's not a satisfactory answer to a socio-economic system critic.

In its current state capitalism is far from what it was just 50 years ago, I don't see anything crazy about pointing out its current flaws and working on them. It'll be changed anyway, the only choice we have is to be an active part in the process or be moved by it.

Interesting perspective. I've done a lot of black-box optimization, and the first thing you learn is that it's really good at breaking your model. What happens when the fitness function is evaluated on the global economy?

Global environmental catastrophe.

Corporations aren't AI. They're just the latest human hierarchy system. It's much more complex than any human system that existed before though. If corporations don't stand by any moral values it's because our culture doesn't have strong moral values. I mean isn't the American Dream really just to get rich? If consumerism is the only value that binds our country together what can you expect from our corporations other than to make more money at any cost.

I don't want to sound too cynical. Humans are doing better than before. Royalty and Aristocracy used to justify slavery and among other horrible things. It's a long road to get to a better society, and everyone is responsible for having moral values and sticking by them. If we want life to be about more than just making money we all have to talk about it, start valuing people that do good and not make everything about money or status. We can't scapegoat this shit to "AI" it's a human problem.

Point: http://omniorthogonal.blogspot.com/2013/02/hostile-ai-youre-...

Counterpoint: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5pUA3LsEaw

This is something I have been thinking about for a while already. I am a sociologist, following Niklas Luhmann's sociological system theory and his description of modern society is very close to what you are describing. Basically he is a societies and organizations functioning with closed operations that can't be directly changed from the outside. This includes the people that for example are members of an organization. Once the system is closed it follows it's own agenda and if one person, even the CEO or the biggest shareholder or whatever, wants to change it, they are unable to determine the outcome of this change. Organization surely have their own social intelligence, which is distinctively different from individual intelligence in terms of morals, ethics etc. I have been thinking to write an essay about this, but I lack the AI knowledge, so in case you want to discuss this further, let me know

> While capitalism as a whole isn't an AI

How do you know this isn't true? That is, how are you certain that these various organizations, either alone or together, don't actually exhibit the emergent behavior of intelligence?

The prime test would be to attempt to probe for that intelligence, though exactly how would be a great question to solve.

If you survive the process, then it is likely that the answer is "no intelligence is found". It might also be that the intelligence exists, but either didn't notice you, or you don't know what to test for, or it is ignoring you.

If you don't survive the process - that is, you meet an untimely (and possibly strange) death - that might be indicative of such intelligence, and it is protecting itself.

Ask yourself this: If one of your neurons suddenly became sentient, and started to try to "poke around" and figure out if this network it is a part of is actually in fact an intelligent being - what would you do if you found this out? Would you leave it alone, as a curiosity? Or would you take action to somehow stop it?

The question is similar to figuring out the "simulation hypothesis" - just at a smaller scale...

> Is it a shock that these processes have exposed these vulnerabilities in our society?

No, not at all. The entire premise of capitalism is to exploit labor.

A singularity is by definition a superintelligence, no? A company (corporation) is just a legal structure of a bunch of people. If a company does something amazing, it's the people behind it in the company responsible -- not the company itself. Although that layer of legal separation is an opaque mapping of who-did-what from an external eye.

> capitalism as a whole isn't an AI, it is an amazing computational process that has produced the greatest advancements in the standard of living in history.

Uh, I think this claim would be hotly debated. Human innovation and curiosity -- tied with scientific knowledge that is carried forward is responsible for standard of living improvements. Things like medicine, building materials, entertainment, access and logistic improvments, yada, yada. Capitalism is just an economic system of letting the buyers and sellers decide where to allocate their funds? If you were talking about a separate measurement, like GDP, I would probably agree with you that capitalism advanced that metric.

These companies are literally small businesses. They're not about maximizing profit or utility, they're about blowing venture capital in the search of biggest fool to pay the highest price in an IPO or acquisition.

It's indicative of an era of cheap and dumb money, where FOMO is driving investment - just like before the dotcom bust.

The VCs funding these companies are about as much to blame for the "servant economy" as they are for the weather. They're a tiny piece of the computation and a minute fraction of the resources being deployed. They might be at the vanguard but they control what comes next just about as much as a surfer controls the waves. It's not their fault.

It's humanity's for not aligning the incentives of these great systems properly.

Surely they could choose to fund other companies?

There is no "servant economy" and these people are not servants. They're performing services that happen to not be well-paid, because virtually anyone can do them. You need virtually no education or skill. The "gig economy" didn't change that.