Why was he wrong?

prescriptively - scarcity of resources
descriptively - over reliance on economic materialism as the primary societal determinant

>muh protestants

Collectivism.

because the working class are dumb maggots that couldnt tie their shoes without the aristocracy wiping their asses for them and the droll from their profane face orfice

He assumed profit was merely a price paid on top of whatever something was worth rather than a price paid for efficiency. As a consequence he and the teenage socialists that followed him don't recognize the value of good management. They can't comprehend why a CEO of a billion dollar company is making hundreds of millions of dollars.

1: Law of Value is a ridiculous and unfalsifiable proposition with no empirical basis whatsoever. The entire moral underpinning of Marx's theory of exploitation is agonizingly shoddy.

2: The entire concept of Historical Materialism is post-facto rationalization and projection. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that one can scientifically analyze history to predict the future reliably, as Marx attempted to do.

This should be obvious given that Marx predicted wrong.

Simple: He wasn't.

Before anybody says “his solutions were bad” please be sure to actually cite literally any of his writing where he tries to give ‘a solution’. Just want to make sure you want talking our your ass over shit you’ve heard other people say and thinks sound smart.

he based his whole system around the fact that people are naturally altruistic and have no need for a hierarchy both of which are wrong and has lead to millions of deaths when people have tried to implement his system

He didn't foresee a potential metamorphosis of unregulated capitalism into an state controlled system like in modern China.

He forgot to account for human nature.
His whole system revolves around class struggles which would fail to exist after his system was implemented.

This. Marx reduces the human to an economic entity.

He was wrong because the development of human history is very strongly influenced by the growth of human knowledge. To predict the future society, one must be able to predict the growth of knowledge. This is impossible because you can't know what you will know tomorrow without knowing it today. Therefore all predictions about the future of human society are on the same level as those of Nostradamus; when they are right it's because of vagueness or luck.

Terry Eagleton’s Why Marx was Right is a fair introduction. Contra the title, he doesn’t so much seek to demonstrate that Marx is correct, instead each chapter is dedicated to showing why one or another common criticism is incorrect and uses that to build a more accurate view of what it is that Marx said. The conclusion is that Marx may or maybe not be correct, but he at least needs to be taken seriously still.

Roman Rosdalsky and Ernest Mandel both have books which are basically intellectual biographies of Marx, tracking the development of Capital. The former is seen as especially important in Marx scholarship. David Mclellen wrote the definitive actual biography.

Counter to what another commenter has said, I think Pt1 of the German Ideology is actual among the most essential works, and this lays out most directly what “Marxism” means, as Historical Materialism. The Preface for ‘A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy’ is also good in this respect.

After that Capital really is the main thing of interest. I’d recommend reading Value, Price and Profit as a short primer. Two books that I think help are Essays on the Labour Theory of Value by I. Rubin, and Marx on Money by S. Brunhoff. Both of those help clarify some of the more tricky parts of his thought.

Many successful companies are self sustaining, because people like/love their products: many CEos had absolutely nothing to do with that, mcdonalds, burgerking, nike, walmart, big banks, etc.

>He forgot to account for human nature
This fucking M E M E

The manifesto is a propaganda pamphlet for borderline illiterate laborers in the 1800s. Read Das Kapital. Not only does he account for "human nature" and "market forces," he elaborates on how the real wild card was always going to be automation.

In fact, the only thing he was wrong about is that Communism would emerge from violent revolution. Which desu I don't fault him for that because that falls under the purview of the "Human nature" everyone's always insisting he forgot. His idea of violent revolution leading to the stateless classless society is just as understandable as Jefferson talking about the tree of liberty being refreshed with blood, and no more Utopian than Plato's Republic (Capital-R Real Republicanism has never been tried!!!).

Something resembling Communism will emerge after a few more centuries of money being a fucking volatile game of abstraction (see, Cryptocurrency, stocks, regulatory bodies being flooded with bad actors from the market, lobbyists, Earth being used as a chessboard for private property owners, rampant destruction of the environment, etc. all in the name of incremental gains in leverage over our temporary opponents)

... and it won't emerge because lumpenproletariat shitstains finally quote 'get woke' with class conshishnesh. It'll emerge because the bourgeoisie finally collectively realize they're the problem and use their own privileges to deconstruct their own privileges and create a network that replaces hierarchies with AI-driven concentric circles of mutual accountability, honesty, and anti-parisitism.

TLDR: Something resembling Communism happen because the market will decide it's more profitable for the human race than to continue the game of Capitalism.

>Many successful companies are self sustaining
>mcdonalds
I see you're just talking out of your ass and haven't followed their recent problems at all. also the turnover rate in the fortune 500 is quite high. the ones that have remained on the list for a long time owe it in large part to talented moves made from the top of the company

Another person who has never read him nor a sympathetic explicator.

He based his system on the idea that people behave according to the economic logic of the society they live in, they will be selfish in a system which requires selfishness, and they will be deferent to authority in a society which requires it.

Marx doesn’t see the world after capitalism as having no hierarchy. A world without any hierarchy? That’s the dumbest shit I’ve ever heard. No, Marx called for overcoming class not hierarchy. For some reason people take that to mean ‘everybody is paid the same’ another unbelievably stupid thing to think. Overcoming class doesn’t mean everybody is paid the same. It takes Americans to come around and think income is the measure of class.

Yeah because successful companies have never been mismanaged, outcompeted, or gone bankrupt. Innovation isn't real so successful companies don't have to evolve either.

>also the turnover rate in the fortune 500 is quite high.
why is the turnover rate high? You think they would have been worth the 20 million a year, with their talents and all

>For some reason people take that to mean ‘everybody is paid the same’ another unbelievably stupid thing to think. Overcoming class doesn’t mean everybody is paid the same
How do you respond to people like Ralf Dahrendorf who have argued that any society with a distribution of income will have classes?

the turnover rate of the company not the ceo. geez you really don't know much about this topic if you didn't even know what the fortune 500 refers to

>I see you're just talking out of your ass and haven't followed their recent problems at all.
What have their net profits been the past 10 years? What are their recent problems? Only billions daily? And you think it takes 30 million a year to come up with a solution? And what The owners of all franchises vote for the ceo? And the original company owner familes with absolutely be crushed if some mcdonalds went out of business and they had to cash out their billions?

>Innovation isn't real so successful companies don't have to evolve either.
Yea innovators do the innovation, ceos are rarely that, ceos are "hey innovators, hows that innovation coming along...oooohh I like that idea!! yasss"

China and the Soviet Union.

I'm not taking this bait.

>the turnover rate of the company not the ceo. geez
I knew what it referred to, we were talking specifically about ceos: why would I think you were not referring to the turnover rate of ceos at fortune 500 companies

why is Veeky Forums so fucking bad at basic economics

Imagine thinking the phrase "markets are efficient" means that they don't waste resources.

Imagine thinking the Law of Value is true at all.

Imagine thinking automation is going to cause the upper classes to relinquish control when it's typically they who have the skills that cannot be automated.

Imagine thinking those in control would happily give up their own control.

Imagine thinking AI will ever even come close to humanity's capacity to think, or that AI as a science right now is anything other than a fancy neural network to be utilized as a tool for humans under human discretion.

There are companies that have been at the top for a long time, and their product is self sustaining, and not created or innovated by their Ceo, and I bet if you told the ceo not to show up to work for a year or two, and stopped paying him, enough people in upper management would be able to run things, and the innovators would innovate

Marxism (a misnomer because Marx didn't invent it) is nothing more than the class ideology of a certain subclass of the middle class existing under capitalism (or pre-capitalist system), mostly consisting of members of the intelligentsia and similar groups. Together this subclass is called the protonomenklatura. They are united by their ideology of Marxism that calls for them to usurp state power by sedition, establish a totalitarian government, and use state terror to liquidate the bourgeoisie and the rest of the middle class, and oppress the working class and underclass to rule over society as a new upper class called the nomenklatura, imposing their self-serving ideology on society as a whole. The contradictions inherent in this new society ultimately lead to its dissolution not into communism but into capitalism or a pre-capitalist system. This historical process has been recorded in hundreds of variations since 1534 and can be directly observed ongoing in many countries in the present day.

As for the ideology itself, it's a combination of various religious and occult ideas dressed up as a science (although that disguise has been mostly discarded in recent decades as science has fallen from favour). The contradictions inherent in the ideology, not to mention the contradictions existing between the ideology and reality, are far, far too numerous to innumerate here. You could fill a library with them. Ultimately the Marxist system can be entirely dismissed as a grabbag of Satanic lies wielded as a blackjack by power-hungry sociopaths in an effort to drag as many souls back with them into Hell as they can. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, though, because the movement is dead as a doornail and utterly irrelevant and impotent today.

>Imagine thinking the phrase "markets are efficient" means that they don't waste resources.
imagine not caring about how many resources are wasted, when it is easily possible to not waste more than half, or all that is wasted

lol this really made them upset dude

Successful companies have to spend billions on marketing and research every year to stay on top because of competition and market trends, and this has to be controlled by someone.
You obviously have zero experience dealing with companies and should refrain from pretending to know what you are talking about, you are being disingenuous probably even without realizing it.

see

imagine thinking that just because I said "markets are efficient" is not the same as "markets waste resources" is the same as me being happy with wasting resources

You Marxists like to throw up an air of intellectualism by criticizing people for not reading the entirety of Marx's philosophical works, but then get suuuuper butthurt when it's revealed you don't actually know anything about the economic theory used in the mainstream schools of thought. It's funny.

>why would I think you were not referring to the turnover rate of ceos at fortune 500 companies
either you're repeating the same mistake again or you incorrectly wrote something down. I wasn't referring to the ceo turnover rate at those companies. so you should have thought that I was not referring to that.

nothing you're even saying here is true and you're just throwing a bunch of irrelevant questions at me hoping something sticks. I mean really "30 million" he just started making about 8 million recently. their recent problems have been greatly decreased market share

>skills that cannot be automated.

Imagine thinking there are skills that cannot be automated.

Imagine spending time filling out captchas on this website and not even realizing you're automating white collar labor by doing so.

ted.com/talks/luis_von_ahn_massive_scale_online_collaboration

Imagine thinking the upper classes will want to keep working when everyone will be better off once they relinquish control to the nanny marketstate.

I’d point out that he’s specifically rejecting Marxian notions of class. And sure, if you are a sociologist who wants to just come up with a different idea of what class is, go for it, but don’t treat it like it shows Marx’s class system to be wrong.

For Marx what class captured wasn’t a fact about the common experience of its members, it captures something about the economic logic which they will adhere to. You can get situations were the owner of a struggling connivence store actually makes less than a unionized auto line worker, but the store owner is still petty-Bourgeois and is going to vote for the same party as other PBs, agaisnt the left party that line worker will likely vote for. Class is an economic fact, and for Marx it expresses something about how the members behave as economic agents. If you want a theory of class to capture something totally different, then by all means. Marx’s entails three major classes, each with subclasses, all relating to structural facts about the economy, and not income.

was he wrong though? no, no, listen to me.

but was he?

Most commiefags actually want a market economy with basic income and don't even realize it, they think they want communism but don't actually understand what a planned economy is.

>here's a critique of your argument, which I am obviously responding to
>EXCUSE ME SIR, please refer to this brand new argument you have never seen

>imagine thinking that just because I said "markets are efficient" is not the same as "markets waste resources" is the same as me being happy with wasting resources
Imagine thinking not being happy means anything if you dont offer a solution to waste half the amount of resources that are wasted or more; what is capitalisms solution to this: your feigned or unfeigned unhappiness, "im doing my part in pouting!"

>their recent problems have been greatly decreased market share
have they considered serving healthy food? There, I will only ask for 7 million

>Imagine thinking AI will ever even come close to humanity's capacity to think

Imagine being such a shithead that you think your neural network of biological cells forged in the multi-billion-year-long blind struggle of prehuman intelligences is going to remain more efficient than whatever comes next.

Imagine not realizing technology will facilitate new forms of biological/computational (THEY WILL BE THE SAME THING) evolution the same way evolution resulted in creatures who could make technology (i.e. us).

Imagine living in the 1800s and insisting that cameras would never surpass the human eye, or that mechanical calculation would never surpass a team of educated mathematicians or that insisting that libraries would eventually run out of space because books take up too much physical space.

Your intelligence will be reproduced, improved upon, miniaturized, and used to make you obsolete. The upper classes will either EXTERMINATE the proletariat or merge with them. It doesn't matter which will happen, because afterwards we'll have something resembling Communism.

It's the best we're going to get, and it's going to be horrifying. Two parts NEW JERUSALEM and 1 part I HAVE NO MOUTH AND I MUST SCREAM

1- Labour Theory of Value is flat out wrong. The amount of labour put into the product doesn't determine its value
2- He had absolutely no conception of the concept of production costs, hence he can retardedly screech about "exploitation of surplus labour"
3-"alienation" isn't real
4- he thought a human being is the sum of his social interactions so somebody not fitting in the spontaneous democratic society with no private property after the abolishment of capitalism would be as likely as someone growing a third eye. hence is refusal to address anything about how things would be after the destruction of capitalism. he actually called it "irresponsible"

>this is your brain on hegel

I have some food product ideas that will generate mcdonald billions over the coming years, give me a million dollars for them. Actually no, give the ceo 8 million, and millions in stocks and bonuses, and give me 50,000 for my ideas please, thank you.

How is competition "wasted resources"?
Competition forces companies to streamline and decrease costs as much as possible, in real life government-owned companies are by far the most wasteful since they have zero market pressure and I know this because I live in a dysfunctional country that fell for the big state meme.

>coming up with items on the menu is the extent of what the ceo does.
please stop posting

>1- Labour Theory of Value is flat out wrong. The amount of labour put into the product doesn't determine its value
What do you think counts as labor.
Make a list.
Does it include "automated processes?" Because it should. Does it include "maintenance of automated processes?"
How about "research and development?"
How about planning, financing, consulting?
Labor very much determines the value of something. That and supply and demand.

>Successful companies have to spend billions on marketing and research every year to stay on top because of competition and market trends, and this has to be controlled by someone.
>500 million to marketing, 500 million to research and development, there, 10 million for me, all in a hard days work

>Marx’s entails three major classes, each with subclasses, all relating to structural facts about the economy, and not income.
Are you just basing your idea of what Dahrendorf's position is based on the summary I said about him or are you familiar with his views? Because they don't relate to income like you seem to have got from my post.

>>coming up with items on the menu is the extent of what the ceo does.
>We are experiencing an extreme buisness tragedy, market shares are greatly decreased...
>I think the nature of the items on the menu is not the biggest source of our problem
You must be a ceo

There's nothing to be gained from Veeky Forums threads about economy.

to respond to your picture: because your labor isn't the only source of new value

first of all
>ted talks
second of all, I realize that many skills can be automated, but I do genuinely believe there are some things the human mind is capable of that computers will never be capable of. Just think about what machines which seek to identify pictures are doing. They're trying to mimic the human ability to conceptualize and generalize things. Yet this thing humans do without even trying, machines have failed to successfully do.

As an example, look at this article:
engineering.musefind.com/we-compared-the-3-best-image-analysis-apis-here-s-what-we-learned-2d54cff5ae62.

The three image recognition software choices given are not bad, but painfully below a human's capacity. Even some of the less-than-intelligent humans can do better than that. So why is a machine, which doesn't really have computing errors like humans do (we make poor decisions when we're tired for example), and which operates so much faster than humans do, completely incapable of replicating this basic human operation?

Humans take in sense-data, universalize it, create universal "objects" which are essentially bundles of universalized sense-data, and then form relationships between said objects. This is the basic system which Hegel and Kant agree on. And if you read either of them, you'll realize we go much farther than that; even animals do the above to a certain extent.

It's possible AI might someday be able to do all of that, but the more I learn about consciousness, the less convinced I become.

What does that even mean? It's the CEO's job to ensure that his business doesn't fall into tragedy and if the items in the menu are detected as the cause of this tragedy then the CEO orders it to be changed, the part-time burger flipper won't come up with the solution himself unless he's paid to do so.

so the argument goes the capital of tractor is condensed labour because someother worker put labour into making that tractor. except that pearls etc Magellan's crew exchanged with wrought metal in Malasia doesn't fit this, neither does the skill of two workers in which one worker might work 1 hour to produce a chair and another 3 for the same chair which is sold at the same price because of arbitrage.

You said mcdonalds experiencing major decrease in market share, I said I have product ideas that will net the company billions over the next few years, severely increasing market shares, we will wait to see how the ceo does, I am just saying I could turn it all around, and do it for 100 grand

they weren't the person you were talking to. also no you couldn't turn it around with just changing the items on the menu

You most likely don't know better than the very experienced market analysts the CEO of McDonald's hired but if you feel like you're fit for the job then feel free to apply.
I won't pretend to know exactly why McDonald's is losing market share, but it's probably a combination of an aging society looking for what is perceived as healthier and less kiddy-friendly food, fierce competition with a more hip image, and a billion other factors.

What I do know however is that McDonald's is constantly trying to invert this trend by modernizing itself by changing menu items, improved service and home delivery, mobile ordering, new marketing strategies, etc, many things that you most likely didn't even think about.

You have a very cursory idea of how companies work and you are suffering from dunning-kruger effect.

The guy who took the risk and analyzed the market... that's LABOR

>ted talks
shut the fuck up
It's the guy who invented captchas
explaining how their real value is crowdsourcing the automation of labor

BUT HEY YOU DON'T LIKE THE PLATFORM HE WAS GIVEN TO SPEAK SO LET'S GREENTEXT IT AND IMPLY IT'S A HORRIBLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION

sick of this faggotry pedaled in every thread

because of that greentext

*folds arms*

I'm not gonna read anything else you said

anythign!

the point of the 2nd and 3rd panel is to make those points dummies. the comic isn't in favor of the worker

The funniest part about your analysis is that you think computers are better at mechanical calculation. They're definitely faster, hands down no questions asked, but they're unable to provide the criteria necessary to generate a good answer. So actually you still need a team of educated mathematicians to get an answer that isn't wrong.

You cannot, for example, solve every integral in calculus with a computer. There are some functions which behave in such a way that the common methods of calculation fail, and a more advanced method must be introduced. This is actually a nice little problem in numerical analysis, if you want you could look up "stiffness and differential equations" and find results on it.

Imagine thinking that cameras recreating an image is the same thing as us trying to build consciousness from the ground up mechanically. Digital cameras take light, turn it into a "discrete signal" and then process that. Our eyes basically do the same thing with less sensors. If AI were using a similar process to recreate human intelligence, but just doing it more efficiently, I could be convinced. The problem is producing analysis from data is infinitely more complex than, say, producing a wavelength from light.

If the direction AI was taking was literally replicating a human nerve cell's functionality, then making these models smaller, and then organizing them in a particular way, you could convince me that we might get overtaken. This is not what's happening, in short. And I'm not even sure that what happens in a human nerve cell can actually be miniaturized without fucking it up; I don't know and neither do you.

Unfortunately the only way to tell is to wait.

>also no you couldn't turn it around with just changing the items on the menu
What percentage of their declining market shares would you guess are due to menu items? What percent due to marketing? What percent due to resturant aesthetics style? What other percents of other things do you think may be the culprit...please just tryyyy to answer these questions, half or quarter ass guesses

Take a look at reality. Guess whose ideologies won?

Losers are always wrong.

that isn't something the public could know. it takes company insider information to know what the problems are.

>but I do genuinely believe there are some things the human mind is capable of that computers will never be capable of
>genuinely believe

Yes. It's a belief. That's why it doesn't convince me.

Human minds
are
biological computers
they are arbitrary arrangements of matter and energy
that can be reproduced through a process as crude as reproduction
to insist that research, development, engineering and manufacturing will not one day be capable of reproducing what makes a human mind a human mind is to be naive about these matters. I'm just waiting for you to say you find the theistic explanation for the origin of human intelligence more trustworthy than the much more reasonable materialistic assertion that consciousness is a self-aware computational feedback loop sustained by a biological computer for an arbitrary amount of time.

If I bonked you hard enough on your head, you would sustain brain damage, and your intelligence would suffer and change as a result. We saw this as early as Phineas Gage. Human intelligence is material and reproduceable in manufactured objects (whether they are "alive" or not is not the central issue)

>Just think about what machines which seek to identify pictures are doing. They're trying to mimic the human ability to conceptualize and generalize things.

They're not mimicking it. They're building cloud computing database which generalizes how and why humans are doing it, based on responses from millions of humans, and are constantly refining this understanding in real-time without human help. Their intelligence is emerging and developing (with our deliberate assistance, mind) at a much faster rate than our own forms of intelligence developed in the biological state of prehistoric struggle. The first instance of computations were done by hand only a few millenia ago, and look how far computation has come! It took billions of years of evolution for humanity to emerge. AI will take much less time because it has the assistance and guidance of the human intelligence, which it will surpass, just like man surpassed animal nature with the assistance of animal nature.

>The three image recognition software choices given are not bad, but painfully below a human's capacity. Even some of the less-than-intelligent humans can do better than that.
Today! Tomorrow?

>So why is a machine, which doesn't really have computing errors like humans do (we make poor decisions when we're tired for example), and which operates so much faster than humans do, completely incapable of replicating this basic human operation?

You just explained why.

I give humanity three centuries, tops, barring luddite backlash. Until we are surpassed in both intelligence and empathy by our own creations. We are actively integrating what makes us superior to computers into computers. Computers won't always be silicone. Biotech exists and is developing. Genes work like an ancient biological object-oriented programming language anyway.

Just kidding
responded here:

youtube.com/watch?v=gn4nRCC9TwQ

There is an entire field of AI dedicated to AI developing its own systems of pedagogy and goal prioritization
watch the normie vid for a glimpse

just cuz i dont talk so smart about this shit dunt me computter won't be smarter than me soon >:)

>mechanists still exist in 2017
what a shame

I actually watched a decent portion of the video. You're right, it's crowdsourcing. It's not automation of human intelligence though. Automation would involve extracting the capacity of humans to solve a captcha, recreating it mechanically, and then doing it independent of human labor.

A for-loop automates the process of iteration. A human presses a button, and instead of him doing the iteration, the iteration happens independent of him.

Duolingo doesn't automate the process of translation. Humans are still translating. It's definitely useful, and I'm glad someone is utilizing human intelligence in that way, but humans are still doing the work. I actually thought captcha's were utilizing some sort of machine learning system to "learn" how to analyze text in order to do it independent of humans.

Let me give you an example. I was working on a project for a company the other day that involved comparing two lists of names. I had one list, and I wanted to see if the other list contained the named item in the first list. There was a problem though. Two non-identical names could represent the same item. So how could I get the computer to compare the names and see if they represented the same thing? The short answer is I had to come up with a bunch of criteria that made it so when the names were compared they would match. in some way.

AI, as it currently works, and as it will probably continue to operate in the future, cannot come up with the criteria itself. Neural Networks are the closest thing we have to AI developing its own relationships between things, and it's not even close to human capacity.

Labour theory of value is an inaccurate and misleading model

I wish that I could be alive in 300 years to laugh at you. Is there a way to set up a contract so that our descendants could benefit from a bet we make today? Assuming we have descendants?

I can only say this so many times: AI is not capable of developing the criteria to determine when it's doing the correct thing.

Go to the 40 second mark of the video you produced to see a clear example of humans producing the criteria that makes computers do what they do.

I think he was wrong when he argued that profit is merely just stolen labor.

Someone who cooks something at a restaurant has produced some food. But what about the owner who has bought the building, constructed it into a restaurant, got all the supplies, turned it into a viable business, collected the ingredients? That's where the profit comes from. The cook may be directly producing the food, but the owner spent years of work making it easy to make and sell. It's not "stolen" if the owner of the restaurant takes some profit because of all the work they put in beforehand.

Because his system doesn't actually work as intended.

>scientist comes up with a theory
>doesn't test it/does test it and the experiment doesn't produce the intended result
>this experiment was a failure because it didn't produce the result I expected, science is pointless, facts are meaningless

>and a billion other factors.
habababhahb
> etc, many things that you most likely didn't even think about.

ahgagabhahbhababhhabhbahbaha

Why isnt the Ceo of mcdonalds making Ads that direct everyone to the website to give their input on how to make Macdonalds better, what people want, why the people who used to be customers no longer are, what could bring them back, and take suggestions for new menu items (like lays did with customers make their own flavor chips contest)...

There I just gave mcydees a billion dollar idea for free... fuck you capitalist scum!!!

Capitalist projection detected

>AI is not capable
YET

that is the answer to every assertion you make starting with "AI cannot."

The working classes are actually smarter than communists/socialists think and this is the main problem. Why does the modern working class tend to be more sympathetic to right wing movements? Because they know, even just subconsciously, that socialism is mostly about globalism and cultural subversion. The main benefits of socialism are not the working class but the college intellectuals.

>If the direction AI was taking was literally replicating a human nerve cell's functionality

Past hour
Past 24 hours
Past week
Past month
Past year
All results
Verbatim
About 628,000 results
In a Huge Breakthrough, Google's AI Beats a Top Player at the - Wired
wired.com/.../in-a-huge-breakthrough-googles-ai-beats-a-top- player-at-the-game-of-go/
Jan 27, 2016 ... As recently as this month, top AI experts outside Google questioned whether such a victory could be achieved anytime soon. ... Deep learning relies on what are called neural networks—networks of hardware and software that approximate the web of neurons in the human brain. These networks don't ...
Google's DeepMind AI just taught itself to walk - YouTube

► 1:51
youtube.com/watch?v=gn4nRCC9TwQ
Jul 12, 2017 - 2 min - Uploaded by Tech Insider
Tech Insider. ... Google's artificial intelligence company, DeepMind, has developed an AI that ...
Mind vs. Machine - The Atlantic
theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/.../mind-vs.../308386/
Mind vs. Machine. In the race to build computers that can think like humans, the proving ground is the Turing Test—an annual battle between the world's most ... AI programs filled me with a romantic notion that, as a confederate, I would be defending the human race, à la Garry Kasparov's chess match against Deep Blue .
IBM is teaching AI to behave more like the human brain - Engadget
engadget.com/.../ibm-is-teaching-ai-to-behave-more-like-the- human-brain/
Sep 1, 2017 ... Statistical AI (ie machine learning) is capable of mimicking the brain's pattern recognition skills but is garbage at applying logic. ... subsequently tasked in June with answering complex questions about the relative positions of geometric objects in an image -- ie "There is an object in front of the blue thing; ...
Google's new AI has learned to become "highly aggressive" in ...
sciencealert.com/google-s-new-ai-has-learned-to-become-highly- aggressive-in-stressful-situations
Feb 13, 2017 ... We've all seen the Terminator movies, and the apocalyptic nightmare that the self -aware AI system, Skynet, wrought upon humanity, and now results from ... You can watch the Gathering game in the video below, with the DeepMind agents in blue and red, the virtual apples in green, and the laser beams in ...
IBM is Modeling New AI After the Human Brain - Futurism
futurism.com/ibm-is-modeling-new-ai-after-the-human-brain/
Sep 3, 2017 ... DeepMind researchers are looking to the human brain for inspiration as they engineer this new, impressive, synthetic neural network. ... and developers are re -thinking the basis of artificial intelligence by examining our own intelligence and how we might effectively mimic it using machinery and software.
Google's DeepMind AI fakes some of the most realistic human ...

Intel unveils an AI chip that mimics the human brain. ... Those can pass along signals of varying strength, much like the neurons in our own brains. They can also fire when needed, rather than being controlled by a clock like a regular processor.
Intel unveils an AI chip that mimics the human brain - Engadget
engadget.com/.../intel-loihi-neuromorphic-chip-human-brain/
Intel unveils an AI chip that mimics the human brain - Engadget
engadget.com/.../intel-loihi-neuromorphic-chip-human-brain/
Sep 26, 2017 ... Intel unveils an AI chip that mimics the human brain. ... Those can pass along signals of varying strength, much like the neurons in our own brains. They can also fire when needed, rather than being controlled by a clock like a regular processor.
Computer chip mimics human brain, with light beams for neurons ...
www.sciencemag.org/.../computer-chip-mimics-human-brain-light-beams- neurons
Jun 20, 2017 ... But most computers can't run them efficiently. Now, a team of engineers has designed a computer chip that uses beams of light to mimic neurons. Such “ optical neural networks” could make any application of so-called deep learning— from virtual assistants to language translators—many times faster and ...

IBM is Modeling New AI After the Human Brain - Futurism
futurism.com/ibm-is-modeling-new-ai-after-the-human-brain/
Sep 3, 2017 ... IBM is one such company, as they have embarked on the ambitious quest to teach AI to act more like the human brain. The Top 10 Humanoid Robots in Existence Today Click to View Full Infographic. Many existing machine learning systems are built around the need to draw from sets of data. Whether they ...

>AI is not capable of developing the criteria to determine when it's doing the correct thing.

Neither are humans. They're only capable of developing criteria to determine when their wants and/or needs are being fulfilled. Most humans cannot think abstractly or determine their goals. These are determined memetically. People go to school, work and college because they are told to. And the nodes in our society responsible for delegating those goals are less numerous but in many ways just as clueless.

Our genes work according to hierarchical systems of delegation (see hox genes) that resemble object-oriented programming languages.

Our societies also work on hierarchical systems of delegation. And these are often spectacular failures to behold even five, ten years during the aftermath.

AI doesn't prioritize goals for itself because it hasn't been taught to. But it will be taught to and we are actively teaching it to.

To imagine a brick wall limiting technological progress is always short-sighted.

Try telling even the most educated scholars in the 1600s about telephones, television, radio, atomic weapons, video games, etc. and you would have gotten the Giordano Bruno treatment. It was then as it is now. You imagine some kind of brick wall limiting AI from prioritizing goals for itself because you want to remain useful and valuable in this universe, not because the wall is actually there. That wall will be crossed soon enough simply because there is an economic incentive to cross it. It won't be easy, but it will happen. I give it three centuries, tops.

>The working classes are actually smarter than communists/socialists think and this is the main problem. Why does the modern working class tend to be more sympathetic to right wing movements? Because they know, even just subconsciously, that socialism is mostly about globalism and cultural subversion.

"Yeah. Why would working class women and minorities (most of the working class) want equality with rich white men and the abolition of old cultural norms such as marriage and family units in favor of some kind of sick globalist society of cultural subversion. Clearly only the intellectual elite would benefit from such a thing. And the only thing that can save the working class women and minorities from the cold hands of the future is to clutch stupidly to old hierarchies they are placed at the bottom of!"

The worst part of how you think is that it's actual multinational capitalism that is destroying the family unit, traditional cultures, the environment, and so on, not the slutty college professors and horny wealth redistributionists.

ZZzzzzzz

inb4 "multinational capitalism is jewish communism"

fucking scrooge stooge

>horny wealth redistributionists
this makes me erect for some reason

Agreed. Multinationalism of all kinds, socialism, capitalism, needs to go.

Because of the LTV most likely. That has been buttfucked every which way by most economists, although I will admit it is kind of fun to read the economics books that don’t fret over the logistical problems of a seamless supply demand graph because they tend to be more qualitative and less quantitative.

But Keynes is right: there’s functional unemployment. And Walras is right: the supply curve can intersect the demand curve 1-3 times.

So what a bunch of horseshit that theory was.

He wasn't wrong. He just worked from a set of axioms I don't agree with.