Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TheDividendReport t1_ir9xwwu wrote

> Here is a practical example: You go to work and do what you do. You get what you usually buy. You just don't exchange money for all those activities. All that based on the assumption that we switched from ownership economy to usage economy.

> Corps transform into coops and life goes on as usual. Except you are no longer forced to work and can choose to do what you like or even change your activities ever so often. —— > The goal is the become the most useful member of society.

This absolutely makes no sense. I’m an introvert. My goal is to read as many books as I can and upkeep my living.

Anyways, I’m not showing up to work tomorrow. Who do I speak to to get gifted the 3D resin printer and computer upgrades I want?

9

shanoshamanizum OP t1_ir9y8kt wrote

You just post it in the dashboard and whoever is producing it will deliver it to you based on location and availability. If you make a request that is considered inadequate by all participants such as a thousand 3d printers no one will supply it. Each member/unit decides autonomously what is real and what's not. As simple as that.

1

TheDividendReport t1_ir9z3i1 wrote

I can only imagine there are 100,000 people in line before me. So who gets chosen first? The reputation meter measures reputation but gives no privileges.

So is this the metric by how the “most useful” member of society is determined? And I’m assuming it’s unrelated to production, so it’s effectively a social credit (but not required for exchange). The end result is a… popularity contest, then? The Kardashians will (still) have a head start.

3

shanoshamanizum OP t1_ir9zg56 wrote

>I can only imagine there are 100,000 people in line before me. So who gets chosen first? The reputation meter measures reputation but gives no privileges.

Async and random. There is no line.

>So is this the metric by how the “most useful” member of society is determined? And I’m assuming it’s unrelated to production, so it’s effectively a social credit (but not required for exchange). The end result is a… popularity contest, then? The Kardashians will have a head start.

This is your level of contribution vs your level of consumption which gives your credibility for voting in an upcoming liquid democracy simulator. People use it to decide who to delegate rights to vote on their behalf if they wish based on this index. The index is context/topic based and not an all-in-one tool like fame or money. See: https://github.com/stateless-minds/cyber-stasis/discussions/5

6

TheDividendReport t1_ira0y5o wrote

Can an agent’s productivity and contribution be augmented with automation/robotics?

Considering gamification of altruism is interesting, I’m still not sure how the goal is set. It seems like that’s the most important part to implement and many actors have different goals.

2

shanoshamanizum OP t1_ira15j9 wrote

What goals other than survival and contribution do you see fit? The simulator is intentionally not using any form of AI, ML or computational help because the goal is that people learn from the process rather than delegating it to machines. Automation is critical for this to happen just not needed for the supply and demand regulator.

2

TheDividendReport t1_ira2ty9 wrote

I guess I wasn’t taking that approach. My thoughts were that actors would have their own intrinsic motivations that may or may not align with the games goal, such as maximize luxury procurement.

This reminds me of a chatbot conversation I was just having with “God” about building a simulation in which all rewards (dopamine) can only be gained outside of actions that harm other players.

I don’t know if I’m explaining this right, I guess it’s the egomaniacal billionaire problem.

1

shanoshamanizum OP t1_ira30pf wrote

There is no ownership so there are no status goods. It's all based on usage for a certain time. Not sure if the case you describe is applicable here.

3

TheDividendReport t1_ira48zc wrote

Assuming status goods are all forms of luxury. An agent may be motivated to live on a specific plot of land because of childhood memories. Another actor wants to live there because the house has the best view of a mountain. How is this conflict resolved in a barter-free, money-free simulation? (Sorry if this is stated in your material I’m not sure how to navigate the website.)

2

shanoshamanizum OP t1_ira4l1y wrote

Via the liquid democracy simulator which is the second module to be developed. It can happen in many ways such as - rotation, disability preferences, age preferences etc. Since no one owns it all things are time constrained.

0

TheDividendReport t1_ira812e wrote

Yup. It’s those most scarce items that are the hardest to program policy for, especially since those qualities you mention try to stray away from being gamified, but now you have to prepare for actors to work around that. If disability is a deciding factor, who determines? Now we’re talking means testing. Will their reputation score be considered, or will the most disabled actor be chosen over a slightly less disabled actor with more sentimentality and contribution?

Very complex problem. And also one that is good to ponder as a share of overall societal conflict. In a world with relative abundance, we clearly see a lack of efficiency and can draft up an exercise like this. But what happens to the things that can never > 1?

I feel like the only workable solution is advanced virtual simulations of scarce experiences for those actors with selfish motivations (for lack of a more nuanced description).

1

shanoshamanizum OP t1_ira89oz wrote

Compared to how money handles that currently it's still way more effective don't you think? We are not talking about a utopia just a better system than the current one.

1

TheDividendReport t1_iracdir wrote

That’s where my intuition leads me to believe. And thinking on it further, the contemplation on relative abundance/gravitation towards remaining scarcity already has some scientific research to draw on.

The scarcity mindset leads to worse cognitive performance and short/long decision making. I’d say there’s good reason to describe it as self perpetuating. Any gravitation to scarcity (those focused on sentimentality, status goods, luxuries that have available/like alternatives) should start to reduce in a society where relative abundance is efficiently distributed.

Sorry if my initial comment came off as argumentative as it seems. There’s all too common a trope of “hurr durr no money no incentive” when a genuine approach to these issues is brought up. Thanks for the conversation

2

shanoshamanizum OP t1_iracnik wrote

Most welcome! I thoroughly enjoyed it. Please feel free to bring up things as they come to you. It's this feedback and collaboration that leads to progress.

I find it critical that we react to despair with creativity and out of the box thinking because even with the so called perfect system people die every day from it's inefficiencies and get apathetic to it.

1

bigtimephonk t1_irn4ne6 wrote

There's enough excess that most people wouldn't need to work at all should we eliminate the hording of wealth.

1