Artificial Intelligence Writes a Law for a fictional setting

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes, energy is a value, but can be measured by a value, such as Joules or kWh, or whatever unit has this form:

View attachment 346762

Formula from Wolfram|Alpha: energy - Wolfram|Alpha

Yes, energy can be measured as the value of various properties and contexts of stuff in certain units.

 

[AlexB23]

Yes, energy can be measured as the value of various properties and contexts of stuff in certain units.

Yep, that is true. Or in Planck units.

 

[timewerx]

That is true, one of the first things we learned about in an economics class. But yeah, money will never become obsolete, until a breakthrough technology comes about. Even communal societies use money. The Star Trek replicators also use energy, and if energy is scarce, then kilowatt-hours will become a currency.

Money only changes form in time. But it's basically just wealth with the highest level of "liquidity".

What may become obsolete someday is how wealth is distributed -- which means more "free money" and more of the nation's wealth going to the poorest of society.

It's going to be vital in the face of widespread automation of the country to cope with widespread displacements of jobs in the near future. (I prefer NOT to use the term "AI" because no real "hard" AI exists yet)

 

[AlexB23]

Money only changes form in time. But it's basically just wealth with the highest level of "liquidity".

What may become obsolete someday is how wealth is distributed -- which means more "free money" and more of the nation's wealth going to the poorest of society.

It's going to be vital in the face of widespread automation of the country to cope with widespread displacements of jobs in the near future. (I prefer NOT to use the term "AI" because no real "hard" AI exists yet)

Yeah, money used to be grains, then salt, then coins, paper, and now digital. If automation becomes a thing, free college to those displaced by automation should be mandatory.

 

[timewerx]

Yeah, money used to be grains, then salt, then coins, paper, and now digital. If automation becomes a thing, free college to those displaced by automation should be mandatory.

Among the least corrupt nations in the world, many of them offer free college or at cheap cost (a small fraction of the cost of college education in the USA).

But if you're thinking of sending those who lost their jobs to the universities to get free science degrees (Engineering, IT, etc).

I'm telling you it's not going to be easy. The learning curve for some people no matter how hard they try to study, do their best is going to be very steep or outright impossible.

Not from a lack of faith but they're just born that way. Not all of us will end up good with numbers. Some meant for other great stuff that may no longer be needed in our planet at least in the near future. But things have a knack for not staying the same. A lot of things can still happen like the end of the civilization.

Not everyone is going to have the IQ for the science/tech courses. That's just reality. They'll just have to contribute other than crunching numbers or algo's in a fully automated society or else give them free money or they'll starve or steal. It's not their fault. It's a test from the Lord if those has been given much will give to those who has none and not just giving them scraps, but giving them decent lives the very least. A quality of life you yourself won't be displeased with.

 

[AlexB23]

Among the least corrupt nations in the world, many of them offer free college or at cheap cost (a small fraction of the cost of college education in the USA).

But if you're thinking of sending those who lost their jobs to the universities to get free science degrees (Engineering, IT, etc).

I'm telling you it's not going to be easy. The learning curve for some people no matter how hard they try to study, do their best is going to be very steep or outright impossible.

Not from a lack of faith but they're just born that way. Not all of us will end up good with numbers. Some meant for other great stuff that may no longer be needed in our planet at least in the near future. But things have a knack for not staying the same. A lot of things can still happen like the end of the civilization.

Not everyone is going to have the IQ for the science/tech courses. That's just reality. They'll just have to contribute other than crunching numbers or algo's in a fully automated society or else give them free money or they'll starve or steal. It's not their fault. It's a test from the Lord if those has been given much will give to those who has none and not just giving them scraps, but giving them decent lives the very least. A quality of life you yourself won't be displeased with.

Agreed. Once AI takes over a lot of jobs, we will need to move away from a monetary based society.

 

[Kylie]

If you count the number of bricks in a house and you know the cost of a brick, you know how much financial value those bricks will have if you pull down the house, and if you know the cost of an acre of land, you know how much land the sale of those bricks will get you. The financial value of the bricks and the land is just a number that quantifies the conversion rate of one thing to another, i.e. relates how much of one thing can be converted into some other thing, be it land, bricks, gold, numbers in a bank account, a workman's labour, currency notes, etc.

And how do you take into account the countless variables?

How much are people willing to pay for second hand bricks? Do I pay more for the workers to leave the bricks in a clean condition, or do I pay less and end up with bricks that may still have some mortar on them, thereby potentially ruining their resale value? What if there's another house nearby that does the same thing?> With the increase supply of second hand bricks, I'll have to charge less, right? How do I determine the price of land per acre when different acres have different conditions? One plot of land might have a different soil type that leaves it more suitable for building, they may have different drainage issues, different ease of connection to various utilities like plumbing, sewerage, electricity, internet, gas. How about ease of access? Does it have a paved road leading to it, or just a dirt trail? All of these things will make a big difference in the price of land, and you can't just make a determination about the cost based on the area the land takes up.

And many of these things are completely subjective. There's no objective price for a second hand brick. And for some people, they may be willing to pay more for a gas connection to a block of land, yet for a person who doesn't use gas, the presence of a gas connection could be a turn-off, as it would leave them paying for a utility they don't plan to use.

Energy is analogous (except that, unlike financial value, it is constant and conserved, not subjective). Such numbers have no intrinsic value, they quantify the value of other things.

Except there's nothing subjective about how much energy there is.

Sure. but the subjective value is the extrinsic value.

And does energy have an extrinsic value?

Do people say, "Yeah, it's 20 kilowatts of electricity produced by coal, but I was really hoping for 20 kilowatts of solar."

We seem to be using different understandings of intrinsic value. The subjective value something has in a particular situation is its extrinsic value. The intrinsic value is the objective value that that thing has in itself, or in its own right, i.e. its fundamental properties that can be objectively measured, things that are not dependent on market demand, user preference or sentiment.

For the Porsche that would presumably inhere in the amount and quality of the materials it is made of, the workmanship, the construction, functionality, its performance, economy, etc. For the glass of water, likewise, the quantity and quality of the glass, the design & functionality, the amount and suitability of the water for drinking, and so-on. There are some philosophical issues about precisely what constitutes intrinsic value (e.g. distilled water is not great drinking water, so does the intended purpose count?), but it's the principle that matters.


Yes, energy quantifies an intrinsic property equivalence. Rearranging the molecular binding of a certain amount oxygen and the hydrocarbons of petrol produces a predictable amount of high-frequency photons and fast-moving molecules, that produce vibrating & colliding atoms in nearby material (heat), and a local increase in the amount and velocity of gas molecules (pressure). This conversion is quantified using an indirectly observed abstract conserved property called energy.

Molecular binding energy, light energy, thermal energy, kinetic energy, gravitational potential energy, etc., are the names we give to the values of certain properties (states or contexts) of stuff, using a common unit that we use to quantify the conversion between those properties.

I think we are losing track of my initial point.

Back in post 13, you claimed that energy has no intrinsic value. And yet energy most certainly DOES have an intrinsic or objective value. We can measure it. Twenty kilowatts of energy is the intrinsic value, yes? And this contradicts your claim in post 13.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And how do you take into account the countless variables?

It was an analogy.

How much are people willing to pay for second hand bricks? Do I pay more for the workers to leave the bricks in a clean condition, or do I pay less and end up with bricks that may still have some mortar on them, thereby potentially ruining their resale value? What if there's another house nearby that does the same thing?> With the increase supply of second hand bricks, I'll have to charge less, right? How do I determine the price of land per acre when different acres have different conditions? One plot of land might have a different soil type that leaves it more suitable for building, they may have different drainage issues, different ease of connection to various utilities like plumbing, sewerage, electricity, internet, gas. How about ease of access? Does it have a paved road leading to it, or just a dirt trail? All of these things will make a big difference in the price of land, and you can't just make a determination about the cost based on the area the land takes up.

And many of these things are completely subjective. There's no objective price for a second hand brick. And for some people, they may be willing to pay more for a gas connection to a block of land, yet for a person who doesn't use gas, the presence of a gas connection could be a turn-off, as it would leave them paying for a utility they don't plan to use.

It was an analogy, i.e. the concept or principle is similar.

Except there's nothing subjective about how much energy there is.

That's what I said in the text you quoted for this very comment: "Energy is analogous (except that, unlike financial value, it is constant and conserved, not subjective)."

And does energy have an extrinsic value?

Strictly, no, but as it provides a measure of work equivalence that varies depending on the context, we use it to indicate value in a given context. The energy of gasoline is generally considered more valuable than the energy of its combustion products, but they have the same numeric measure.

Do people say, "Yeah, it's 20 kilowatts of electricity produced by coal, but I was really hoping for 20 kilowatts of solar."

Yes, this is an increasingly common refrain; electricity produced by coal is far more wasteful and polluting. Analogously, shopkeepers would rather have $20 in digital currency than a bag of coins; their bank balance increments by the same amount (pace processing fees), but one is simpler and easier than the other.

I think we are losing track of my initial point.

Back in post 13, you claimed that energy has no intrinsic value. And yet energy most certainly DOES have an intrinsic or objective value. We can measure it. Twenty kilowatts of energy is the intrinsic value, yes? And this contradicts your claim in post 13.

A kilowatt is a unit of power, it measures the rate of energy production or consumption so no, it's not the intrinsic value of energy.

 

[Kylie]

It was an analogy.

I don't think it works very well.

It was an analogy, i.e. the concept or principle is similar.

It doesn't really withstand any scrutiny though.

That's what I said in the text you quoted for this very comment: "Energy is analogous (except that, unlike financial value, it is constant and conserved, not subjective)."

So you say it is analogous and then point out why the analogy doesn't work.

Strictly, no, but as it provides a measure of work equivalence that varies depending on the context, we use it to indicate value in a given context. The energy of gasoline is generally considered more valuable than the energy of its combustion products, but they have the same numeric measure.

But we are not talking about what the energy is used for we are talking about the energy itself. Twenty kilowatts is twenty kilowatts.

Yes, this is an increasingly common refrain; electricity produced by coal is far more wasteful and polluting. Analogously, shopkeepers would rather have $20 in digital currency than a bag of coins; their bank balance increments by the same amount (pace processing fees), but one is simpler and easier than the other.

But if you are provided with twenty kilowatts, you can't tell where it came from.

A kilowatt is a unit of power, it measures the rate of energy production or consumption so no, it's not the intrinsic value of energy.

Sorry, I'm not an expert in how electricity is measured. Still, I think the point I am making is clear and this kind of quibbling over minutiae comes across as just a deliberate attempt to avoid the issue.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't think it works very well.

It doesn't really withstand any scrutiny though.

So you say it is analogous and then point out why the analogy doesn't work.

They're both examples of a certain type of conceptual abstraction. But if the analogy doesn't work for you, that's OK.

But we are not talking about what the energy is used for we are talking about the energy itself. Twenty kilowatts is twenty kilowatts.

As I said, a kilowatt is a unit of power, it measures the rate of energy production or consumption; it's not 'energy itself'. The unit of energy is the joule, which quantifies capacity or potential for doing work.

But if you are provided with twenty kilowatts, you can't tell where it came from.

That depends on how it is provided. Power comes in many forms because it measures energy supply or use, and energy quantifies potential for work, and work can be done in many different ways.

Sorry, I'm not an expert in how electricity is measured. Still, I think the point I am making is clear and this kind of quibbling over minutiae comes across as just a deliberate attempt to avoid the issue.

Electricity is just one way that energy can be transferred, and it is measured in the same power units as the other ways.

What issue do you feel I am trying to avoid?

Basically, all I'm saying is that energy is a property of stuff that is measure of (quantifies) its capacity or potential to do work in some respect. That capacity or potential is an intrinsic value of the stuff in a particular state or context. A measure of intrinsic value has no intrinsic value in its own right, it's just a number. There's a common tendency to reify the measure itself as if it has independent existence, but it doesn't; there's no pure energy because there's no pure value, there's only the energy or value of something.

 

[Kylie]

They're both examples of a certain type of conceptual abstraction. But if the analogy doesn't work for you, that's OK.


As I said, a kilowatt is a unit of power, it measures the rate of energy production or consumption; it's not 'energy itself'. The unit of energy is the joule, which quantifies capacity or potential for doing work.


That depends on how it is provided. Power comes in many forms because it measures energy supply or use, and energy quantifies potential for work, and work can be done in many different ways.


Electricity is just one way that energy can be transferred, and it is measured in the same power units as the other ways.

What issue do you feel I am trying to avoid?

Basically, all I'm saying is that energy is a property of stuff that is measure of (quantifies) its capacity or potential to do work in some respect. That capacity or potential is an intrinsic value of the stuff in a particular state or context. A measure of intrinsic value has no intrinsic value in its own right, it's just a number. There's a common tendency to reify the measure itself as if it has independent existence, but it doesn't; there's no pure energy because there's no pure value, there's only the energy or value of something.

Okay, then replace the word "kilowatt" with the word "joule" and see if you have any qualms about my analogy.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Okay, then replace the word "kilowatt" with the word "joule" and see if you have any qualms about my analogy.

Which analogy was that - could you explain, or point me to the relevant post?

 

[Kylie]

Which analogy was that - could you explain, or point me to the relevant post?

Posts 13 and 14.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Posts 13 and 14.

Um, I don't see what you're getting at - how is swapping the units of power & energy relevant to posts 13 and 14?

 

[Kylie]

Um, I don't see what you're getting at - how is swapping the units of power & energy relevant to posts 13 and 14?

You said in post 13 that money has no intrinsic value.

Intrinsic value is the perceived value. I disagreed. I pointed out that this is not correct. A dollar, after all, has the value of a dollar. If it has no intrinsic value, then there should be no problem with me paying you ten cents for a dollar. Net gain to me is ninety cents.

You also said that goods and services was like energy in physics.

Again, I disagreed. First of all, barter has intrinsic value. I used the analogy of a glass of water. If I offered to give someone a glass of water in exchange for a Porsche, then this would seem, a ridiculous trade, yet if the person I was making the trade with was dying of dehydration, then the trade might look very good if the glass of water is going to save his life.

The difference here is that no one would ever trade a dollar for ten cents, no matter how desperate their situation. If they have the value of a dollar, then they they can do anything they need that requires the value of ten cents (and don't get me started on hypotheticals like, "what if they need a ten cent coin and they just have a dollar coin," because we both know that's missing my point). The value of a dollar is always going to be a dollar. But the value of a glass of water can change dramatically, as my Porsche example shows. So barter does have an intrinsic value, money does not.

Does energy have intrinsic or extrinsic value?

If it has intrinsic value, then what makes it change? Energy can be measured objectively, just like money. But the value of that glass of water can not be measured objectively. A dollar is objectively more than ten cents. Ten kilojoules of energy is objectively more then two kilojoules of energy.
But is a Porsche objectively worth more than a glass of water? You may say no, but just ask the guy about to die of dehydration if he agrees.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You said in post 13 that money has no intrinsic value.

Intrinsic value is the perceived value. I disagreed. I pointed out that this is not correct. A dollar, after all, has the value of a dollar. If it has no intrinsic value, then there should be no problem with me paying you ten cents for a dollar. Net gain to me is ninety cents.

Ah, OK. It is the extrinsic value that is the perceived value. The intrinsic value is the value it has in and of itself. So a dollar has no intrinsic value because it is an abstraction. The form it comes in, e.g. a coin or a piece of paper, may have intrinsic value, because it has some utility (e.g. as literal 'note' paper, or to stop a table wobbling), but not because it's money.

You also said that goods and services was like energy in physics.

No, I said that the concept of financial value (represented by money) was analogous to energy in physics.

Again, I disagreed. First of all, barter has intrinsic value. I used the analogy of a glass of water. If I offered to give someone a glass of water in exchange for a Porsche, then this would seem, a ridiculous trade, yet if the person I was making the trade with was dying of dehydration, then the trade might look very good if the glass of water is going to save his life.

And I explained that you were describing the extrinsic value of water and a Porsche, which varies according to subjective judgement. IOW, their intrinsic utility (their physical properties, what they can do or be used for) doesn't change, but the subjective value of that utility does change.

The difference here is that no one would ever trade a dollar for ten cents, no matter how desperate their situation. If they have the value of a dollar, then they can do anything they need that requires the value of ten cents (and don't get me started on hypotheticals like, "what if they need a ten cent coin and they just have a dollar coin," because we both know that's missing my point). The value of a dollar is always going to be a dollar. But the value of a glass of water can change dramatically, as my Porsche example shows. So barter does have an intrinsic value, money does not.

The value of a dollar is in what it represents - the extrinsic (subjective) value of some utility; this is where it differs from the unit of energy, which represents the intrinsic value of something in terms of work potential or capacity (roughly).

Barter is the idea that goods and services can be exchanged according to their extrinsic value, i.e. the subjective value of their utility. I'll concede that some ideas have extrinsic value themselves - the idea that we can barter has some value if we each have goods or services that the other needs or wants - but do ideas have value in and of themselves? how can we judge the intrinsic value of an idea?

Does energy have intrinsic or extrinsic value?

If it has intrinsic value, then what makes it change? Energy can be measured objectively, just like money. But the value of that glass of water can not be measured objectively. A dollar is objectively more than ten cents. Ten kilojoules of energy is objectively more then two kilojoules of energy.

Energy is a measure of the intrinsic value things have in terms of their potential or capacity to do work (roughly). IOW, a measure of the amount of force that can potentially be applied. A car of a certain mass moving at a certain speed, a spring of a certain elasticity compressed a certain amount, a certain amount of gunpowder, a rock of a certain mass suspended a certain height above ground, so on, can all potentially exert a certain amount of force as a result of their particular context or state. This potential or capacity for exerting force is called energy, and can be measured and quantified. The intrinsic value that energy is a measure of will change when the potential or capacity of the thing to exert a force changes - when the car slows down or speeds up, when the spring relaxes or is compressed more, etc.

So energy is a measure of a certain intrinsic value of things that also has extrinsic value. If you want to watch the TV, the energy of the electricity from your plug socket is worth more than the same amount of energy of the water pressure in your taps or hot water in your water tank, or the chemical energy of the clothes in your wardrobe.

But is a Porsche objectively worth more than a glass of water? You may say no, but just ask the guy about to die of dehydration if he agrees.

That would be a subjective opinion of value, i.e. extrinsic value. The objective value of the Posrshe is in its materials, form, and function (a superficially ironic but deeper truth is that these can all be measured in terms of energy expenditure).