Bitcoin-based insurance is a thing though. Maybe he'll come around eventually.
Last I heard, insurance is one of the most regulatorily captured industries in the US
Oh no, Bob? Damn.
Maybe because he thinks it's a way of privatizing something that's been captured the state regulations, without asking for permission.
On its own, it can't 'do stuff'. Nope. A human being can tell it what to do, and only then it will. That's how it is now. And that's how it will always be.
We won't get further if we can't agree on definitions. 'Doing stuff' and 'acting' are the same things to me. And I extensively defined what it means to act. Not sure how the concept of doing stuff differd from those definitions.
It was all related and implied.
The reason why I defined all that was to explain what 'acting' entails. Everything I described as the categories of 'action' are things an AI cannot do.
I thought it to be better than simply saying that an AI cannot act.
•An AI can't aim at ends and consciously choose the means to achieve those ends.
•It cannot own itself or other resources and things. It does not have a will. It has no conception of 'labour'.
•An AI cannot understand the concept of scarcity because it cannot own things.
•Not being able to aim at ends or understand the scarcity in means, it cannot choose between different ends and means.
•Not being able to own things, it cannot bear the costs and risks.
•Not having any conception of costs and risks, it cannot have preferences.
•It cannot have profit and losses as a result of all the above.
All an AI can do is do what it's told. And this function of doing what it's told can increase in complexity. That's pretty much what we're looking at.
Thus, an AI cannot act. Of its own accord.
I love AI and I love using it.
I don't share the skepticism about the economic consequences of its adoption. I think it's going to help a lot of people and companies accumulate capital and increase their productivity. It has certainly helped me.
What I am not a fan of is statists using the tech as an excuse to expand governments.
An AI can't 'act', is what I meant.
The rest was about explaining what I mean by 'acting'. Not separate things.
In order to develop goals, the object needs to be self aware. This isn't the case with AI and I don't think will ever be possible. AI is powerful but if you conversate with it long enough you'll see that it doesn't really understand anything it is saying. A good example are smart cars. They may be able to alert you of hazards on the road and may even prevent accidents by taking control of the car for you. But it can never develop awareness. No one ever worries that their smart car will turn sentient and rebel against you. I think nostr:npub1xnc64f432zx7pw4n7zrvf02mh4a4p7zej3gude52e92leqmw8ntqd43qnl once shared that AI cannot become self aware without being able to properly value things. And a lot of the fears behind AI come from a misconception that AI will value things from a human lens. But why would it value anything? Our valuations are based on feeling pleasure and wanting to avoid discomfort. AI doesn't feel anything. It has no motivation to do anything.
I've learnt to articulate it a bit better since we last spoke about it:
Only human beings can 'act'.
When we say act, we mean to say:
•Aiming at ends.
•Understanding the concept of scarcity in the means available to achieve those ends, like time, energy, resources, capital, etc.
•Choose the preferrable ends and means by rank ordering them.
•Bear the opportunity costs of aiming at certain ends and means over others.
•Choose the preferrable ends and means based on costs.
•Take the risk of incurring a loss by choosing the wrong means to achieve their ends.
This is basically the action axiom.
Wading further into the philosophical territory, we can say that only human beings can 'reason' about things.
H/T Hans-Hermann Hoppe. His writings have helped me understand the above.
Furthermore, perhaps a theological argument can be made that only human beings have the ability to access 'revelational knowledge'. Only they have the gift of self-realization. But I am too young and inadequately read to elaborate this particular point properly.
Severely underrated and mischaracterized intellectual
His rationalist writings are top notch nostr:note1qeps8tyt53fdtmjkxphlll9w8wv0sja0tug3etw5mant8qz6gqjspt7fzm
That's fair! Hope they get that feature in finally
Man took the time to respond pretty well
Give him something lmao
Menger, Mises, Rothbard, Ammous nostr:npub1gdu7w6l6w65qhrdeaf6eyywepwe7v7ezqtugsrxy7hl7ypjsvxksd76nak
Hoppe
Massive work on first principles. It's insane.
There's a lot to expand on too, especially when you've grokked Bitcoin
Bitcoin standard gonna bring about an Austrian renaissance, that much I know
Just checked. Well-handled by them GG
Reminds me of how they listened to user feedback on the external signer feature and added it, another one of those flashy updates (which I wanted, so no complaints 😂)
Sometimes devs tend to be adamant about the software they build and what they prioritize. I suppose that's normal.
Damus folks straight up said no to external signers and didn't even want to listen. So I just haven't bothered to use it or download it despite waiting for a long time for it to come on Android 😂
Best part about the Austrians is that after a point you don't need to read them that much anymore
You start thinking on your own
I.e. your mind becomes ripped 😂
I don't think they're gonna listen because I don't think they prioritize the little things 😂
They go for the flashy ones like the wallet, live streams, studio, etc.
Their mobile site still takes way too long to load. Like it's actually terrible. I try to share as little of Primal's links as possible.
But yeah, overall a great client for a lot of things.
So much potential improvements in store for the 'average worker' on a Bitcoin standard
I don't think socialist ideas would be as popular in a hyperbitcoinized world.
Unions will exist, as they should in any functioning market economy, but they'll function as genuine unions that negotiate with companies like normal people rather than retarded revolutionaries who want to burn everything.
Notifs haven't been Primal's strong suit at all sadly
Great for zaps and video playback though
Yeah I get what you mean. But I've developed a habit of using different clients for different things. One for replies, one for zapping, one for video, etc. It's great that we get to pick and choose from so many options.
They'll also have their ups and downs I think. Like it's been a while since I've used Amethyst because it's a massive drain on my phone's battery and many basic features don't work as they used to anymore.