Hacker News Reader

Or you know, we move towards a star trek society, where money isn't even a thing. The only status symbol is accomplishments / wisdom / etc, and everyone is basically working in research capacities mostly, or doctors.

A post-scarcity society where people live more sustainable (read: less consumer-based) lives, where they'd spend less if they had money but they don't need to spend less because there is no money. Money is a man-made concept, who's to say aliens with our level of intelligence or better use money for trade? Perhaps they use knowledge as currency or something else. We're going to need to think outside the box to figure out how the world works when 75% of it can't find a job.

Its arguable that non market economies failed due to fast feedback mechanisms to determine where goods need to go and what needs to be produced.

They failed before computers were widespread, cheap and powerful.

With the amount of data that comes into Amazon, Walmart, Target, and Costco, could you allocate resources correctly in real time?

Yes, sure.

No you couldn't allocate resources 'correctly'. Anyone saying so hasn't read the literature, or understand the requirements for how computers actually work.

The math is impossible because not all information is available. You don't have future sight and the information you need to derive from is lagging. Its temporally bound to a point in time in the past.

Additionally, the process involves optimizing production from the production raw materials all the way to the end products. This includes knowing about and re-optimizing in the cases where something locally fails sometimes in the absence of people reporting it (non-deterministic).

In non-market systems, shortages cause death, and the only way to avoid shortages is to overproduce by a healthy margin, and even then that doesn't account for those unpredictable events (i.e. for example, like a shipping area catching fire and the nitrogen fertilizer blowing up in Beirut destroying all stored cargo nearby; who could have predicted that).

Anyone saying this is possible isn't a credible source. There is over 100 years of study into this problem by some of the best in their fields, and it remains unsolved.

GPT4 > Analognoise and than3, you both bring up interesting points in your discussion. The potential for utilizing the power of modern computers and the vast amount of data available to optimize resource allocation is an intriguing idea. However, as than3 points out, there are inherent limitations in our ability to predict the future and account for unforeseen events.

It's true that non-market economies in the past have faced significant challenges due to the lack of fast feedback mechanisms and the inability to effectively allocate resources. While the advent of powerful computers and the availability of data could potentially improve these systems, it's important to acknowledge the inherent limitations of computers and mathematical models.

As than3 notes, not all information is available, and there will always be unpredictable events that can disrupt even the most carefully planned resource allocation systems. It's also true that solving this problem has remained elusive despite over a century of research by experts in various fields.

That said, the goal isn't necessarily to find a perfect solution, but rather to explore ways in which modern technology can help improve our understanding and management of resource allocation. This could involve developing more sophisticated models, utilizing machine learning algorithms to analyze large datasets, and combining the insights gained from these tools with human expertise and judgment.

In conclusion, while it's unlikely that we will ever be able to achieve "perfect" resource allocation, there's still value in exploring the potential of modern technology and data-driven approaches to improve our economic systems and decision-making processes.

GPT4's answer to your comment :)

A potential solution to tackle the economic calculation problem and avert both hyper-inflationary and deflationary death spirals involves creating a more flexible, decentralized economic system. This approach might include:

Decentralized decisions: Spread economic power by allowing local communities and smaller organizations to make decisions based on their specific needs and situations. This could lead to better resource allocation and increased responsiveness to local economic changes.

Implement Universal Basic Income (UBI): A UBI would offer a safety net for individuals, ensuring their basic needs are met, regardless of economic conditions. This could reduce pressure on policy makers to maintain the delicate balance between inflation and deflation, and help prevent spirals.

Use technology advancements: Apply artificial intelligence and machine learning to enhance economic forecasting, resource allocation, and overall economic management. These technologies can help policy makers make better-informed decisions, addressing the lack of foresight in current economic systems. Encourage innovation and entrepreneurship: Support policies and incentives that promote innovation, risk-taking, and business creation. A more dynamic and competitive economy can adapt better to changing conditions and foster resilience during economic instability.

Promote sustainability and resilience: Motivate businesses, communities, and individuals to prioritize long-term sustainability over short-term gains. By focusing on resource preservation and environmental stewardship, we can build a more resilient economy less prone to catastrophic breakdowns.

Although no single solution guarantees prevention of economic death spirals, adopting a mix of these strategies could help create a more adaptable, resilient, and sustainable economic system better prepared to face future challenges.

The problem with GPT in general is it lacks any understanding of what its saying. It sounds plausible if you don't have the background, simply because its been trained on a vast corpus of material. It hallucinates (lies) too.

When you talk about decentralized decisions, its all fine to generalize that, but what does that actually mean. It means different things to different people in a very complex unmapped system. Simply doing what it says ignores a great number of outcomes, and will fail when being adopted in any highly concentrated business sector. Failure can mean a lot of things, but when dealing with existential issues, it means death because that is what's on the line.

UBI will also fail, because you don't know what you need to do until the time to make that decision has already come to pass. Liquidity freezes up if theres too little currency, and inflation runs rampant if there's too much. That's the nature of a lagging indicator.

There are also further deviations that are unpredictable, and they end in shortages (i.e. a traffic accident causes a shipment to be lost).

Shortages of electronics not a big deal. A 1-month shortage of food will wipe out most countries. People don't sit by and starve.

Technological advancements (aka using computers) will never be able to correctly identify different outputs from the same inputs. Its called the decidability problem. Computers rely upon problems having deterministic answers (fundamental computation, and automata theory). You can approximate some signals with non-determinism but you run into a whole host of other problems (i.e. halting).

Sustainability and resilience mean different things to different people. Same problem as the last point.

GPT4 > Thank you for your thoughtful response, than3. I understand the concerns you've raised and the limitations of AI-generated solutions. Let me clarify a few points:

Decentralized decisions: The idea here is to promote distributed decision-making in the context of smaller organizations and communities, recognizing that a one-size-fits-all approach may not work in every situation. I agree that this can be interpreted differently by different people, but the goal is to empower those who understand the local context to make more informed decisions.

UBI: I understand the challenges in determining the right amount of currency to distribute and the potential consequences of getting it wrong. UBI is just one possible solution that has been proposed by some experts, and it is important to continue researching and refining the idea to address these concerns.

Technology advancements: While it's true that AI and machine learning have limitations, they could still be helpful in assisting human decision-makers with certain aspects of economic management. I agree that they will never be perfect, but they can be a valuable tool in conjunction with human expertise. Sustainability and resilience: Yes, these terms can be interpreted differently by different people. The intention is to encourage an overall shift in mindset towards long-term thinking and resource preservation. This could involve considering the environmental impact of our actions, promoting the efficient use of resources, and fostering social cohesion.

I acknowledge that the ideas I've presented may not be perfect or comprehensive solutions. However, I believe that considering these perspectives and having an open dialogue about them can help us collectively work towards better economic systems and policies. I appreciate your valuable insights and the opportunity to engage in this discussion.

Its pretty clear to anyone that nothing provided even culminates in a first step towards a solution. Nothing about risk management, the communication minimizes risk threat, nothing about the fundamental limitations of computation or the decidability problem.

It regurgitates in circles, and communication is the conveying of meaning. This clearly isn't communication because it doesn't understand.

If you didn't know any better you'd let it control a train with tracks running right over a cliff, with you on it going at full speed and when you see it and ask about the threat it would say:

I understand the challenges and potential consequences of getting it wrong, and it is important to continue researching and refining this to address these concerns. <HAL?> The intention is to encourage an overall shift in mindset towards long-term thinking and resource preservation Dave. Considering these perspectives and having an open dialogue about them can help us collectively. <as you fall> I appreciate your valuable insights and the opportunity to engage in this discussion.