Does the Market Always decide? An application for AI?

[Peterkin]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

At the point of transaction / money exchange, if the vendor has what they want at the right price. 

Sure, assuming they're able to pay a higher price, and if the vendor has anything they want. In most cases, the vendor has four other products that are identical or similar. You want anything else, the vendor shrugs: there is nothing he can do about supply.

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

At the transaction point of a competitor if they have better product, better price, or better service. 

He usually doesn't. And the vendor across the street has identical or similar products with a different logo.

 

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

At the patent attorneys office, if the product exists but is being cockblocked by a major corporation or actual person.

Why and how would a different product exist, and if it did, how would a random shopper in a department store know it?

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

At the customer service contact point,

Have you actually tried this?

"None of these dresses have pockets. I need pockets"

"We don't have any dresses with pockets."

"Why not?"

"I don't know, sir. They come without pockets."

"Well, I want to lodge a complaint."

"Crooked zippers, uneven hems, incorrect sizing... I'm sorry, sir, there's nothing on the complaint form for pockets."

Etc.

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

at the handmade / handcrafted market,

That's the venue I'd prefer, assuming one were available to everybody.

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

or in the consumers own garage

Yell at the car? Or learn to sew your own dress? Both are viable options that have little discernible impact on "the market"

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

entrepreneurial startup office if the product or service doesn’t yet exist at all. 

Good one! Plenty of funds and free time available .... until you run up against the patent, the challenges of advertising and marketing, the Dragon's Den or amazon.

Theory doesn't always match practice.

 

[iNow]

You asked WHERE a consumer could voice their demand and I answered that both simply and thoroughly. 

You then replied parsing each sentence with post containing no fewer than 7 new questions, questions which followed your cursory curt dismissal of each valid answer I presented.

Just so we’re clear, I have neither plans to nor interest in addressing any of them. 

[Peterkin]

20 minutes ago, iNow said:

You asked WHERE a consumer could voice their demand and I answered that both simply and thoroughly

That's quite true. It was a poorly formatted question. Sorry. 

[Endy0816]

27 minutes ago, chrisjones said:

Just one point I'd like to clarify I don't think ai systems are perfect or infallible therefore I have proposed that this system would "Suggest" better strategies and it's somewhat interchangeable with "Augment" or augmentation. My reasoning is that I think that ai can't match human empathy but merely mimics it. Therefore I think that the outputs from this system would still have to be graded and filtered by emotionally intelligent humans.

I guess I can't see why one sufficiently advanced wouldn't be capable of empathy. It will have various material needs and immaterial goals as well.

Many of the programs may be too simple though. My cat isn't particularly empathetic. Many programs are more likely to be at that level.

[Sensei]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

If there are no dresses with pockets being sold, they have no choice. The market has not fulfilled the demand

..then make a dress with pockets if there is an unmet demand for it and become a billionaire.. ?

Business owners try to find 'gaps' which they can fill by what people always wanted and/or they never even dreamed about..

A good business owner asks customers what they want. This is done at fashion shows to gauge whether something will be criticized or welcomed.

ps. "pocket"/"bag" is older than the dress.. had to carry stuff almost naked..

Edited August 27, 2022 by Sensei

[chrisjones]

In an attempt to keep this thread on the topic of my initial proposal it did occur to me that the underlying dynamics of this system are to nudge political systems around the globe to include individuals with a high  "EIQ" (EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT) in the decision-making process. However, ideas can be repurposed for good or bad purposes and it occurred to me last night that this ai system could have the potential for a military application.

[Sensei]

9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

They patent mundane things that can be produced in enormous quantity of identical item at low cost. The consumer is stuck with those five models, especially if three of them brands are owned by the same corporation.

..then there is gap which you can try to fill..

9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

(Did you ever have buy a pair of eyeglasses between 2000 and 20018? They were all the exactly the same shape, including the expensive 'designer' ones.) 

...sorry.. I am printing, 3D printing, my own...

as unique as Mona Lisa, Salvator Mundi etc. one copy in the entire Universe..

If you have a spare 1B, I can send one to you. Great investment opportunity for such a mortal!

 

How many times have you had something unique in the entire Universe?

Edited August 27, 2022 by Sensei

[swansont]

11 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Where does an individual consumer voice the demand?

At the store. On the company website. Twitter. Facebook.

7 hours ago, Sensei said:

then make a dress with pockets if there is an unmet demand for it and become a billionaire.. ?

If the market decided this would be automatic.

7 hours ago, Sensei said:

A good business owner asks customers what they want.

But if there are bad business owners, it means that the market does not decide.

 

[Sensei]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

But if there are bad business owners, it means that the market does not decide.

But what do you mean by "bad business owner"? "good business owner" just delivered what the market wanted.. What will the "bad business owner" deliver in return?

 

Edited August 27, 2022 by Sensei

[dimreepr]

21 minutes ago, Sensei said:

But what do you mean by "bad business owner"? My "good business owner" just delivered what the market wanted.. What will the "bad business owner" deliver in return?

 

Good business owner = got lucky.

Bad business owner = got unlucky...

How could an AI change the odds of delivering on a 50:50 bet?

[Peterkin]

There are a number of assumptions expressed above of which I question the practicabilty. The ideas, however, are excellent.

[Ghideon]

12 hours ago, chrisjones said:

That is what I am proposing, I think the system could be employed to " suggest" better planning and policy strategies and outcomes and employed to resolve many issues such as water resources, agriculture, climate mitigation and adaption, conflict resolution strategies, etc. However what makes my particular idea novel is the emphasis on independent neutrality and the global distribution of cooperative country-based nodes of the system I think.

Thanks for your reply. Let's assume we have constructed a prototype or candidate AI model that we think is capable of adressing issues of current financial markets*. Who would have the last say on go/no go for such a system on the scale you suggest? My guess:

On 8/25/2022 at 7:12 PM, chrisjones said:

the dirty, competitive, partisan and biased political systems

 Then, assuming the system passes that hurdle and is up and running. Who would decide who and how the AI is operated? My guess

On 8/25/2022 at 7:12 PM, chrisjones said:

the dirty, competitive, partisan and biased political systems

And when there is a disagreement abut whether to trust the AI or not, or to replace or update the model depending on new events (a pandemic for instance) Who has the final say? 

On 8/25/2022 at 7:12 PM, chrisjones said:

the dirty, competitive, partisan and biased political systems

My conclusion:
-The issues you describe falls outside the scope of computer science, the problem is within other domains.
-Your proposal about AI will not work, party for the reasons you have already hinted in your posts.

This does no in any way say that it is useless to try to use AI or related concepts when establishing policies. But you need a well defined problem and something that could be modelled or parameterised in a way that an AI can be used.

 

*) "AI" as currently available, not some fantasy super advanced future system like in a sci-fi movie. As far as I know, current understanding of for instance complex systems, political systems and economical systems limits our ability to develop mathematical models that an AI could be based on.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

But what do you mean by "bad business owner"? "good business owner" just delivered what the market wanted.. What will the "bad business owner" deliver in return?

 

A bad business owner does not. (I thought this was obvious). Businesses fail all the time.

An owner may decide that they are doing well enough, and including a product that e.g. has a lower profit margin would mean less income. They don’t want to take the risk.

”the market will decide” is an idealized view. It’s an aphorism. It’s sort of true, it’s useful as an approximation, but there are exceptions. 

 

[chrisjones]

Hi Gideon I can't seem to quote your post again so I will copy and paste it :0) However I have bursts of creativity due to being bipolar and I am running out of steam on this subject somewhat, however, I have given my sluggish neurons a boost with strong coffee and a cigarette. You said:

 

That is what I am proposing, I think the system could be employed to " suggest" better planning and policy strategies and outcomes and employed to resolve many issues such as water resources, agriculture, climate mitigation, adaption, conflict resolution strategies, etc. However what makes my particular idea novel is the emphasis on independent neutrality and the global distribution of cooperative country-based nodes of the system I think.

Thanks for your reply. Let's assume we have constructed a prototype or candidate AI model that we think is capable of addressing issues of current financial markets*. Who would have the last say on go/no go for such a system on the scale you suggest? My guess:

  On 8/25/2022 at 6:12 PM, Chris jones said:

the dirty, competitive, partisan, and biased political systems

 Then, assuming the system passes that hurdle and is up and running. Who would decide who and how the AI is operated? My guess

  On 8/25/2022 at 6:12 PM, Chris jones said:

the dirty, competitive, partisan, and biased political systems

And when there is a disagreement about whether to trust the AI or not or to replace or update the model depending on new events (a pandemic for instance) Who has the final say? 

  On 8/25/2022 at 6:12 PM, Chris jones said:

the dirty, competitive, partisan, and biased political systems

My conclusion:
-The issues you describe falls outside the scope of computer science, the problem is within other domains.
-Your proposal about AI will not work, partly for the reasons you have already hinted about in your posts.

This does not in any way say that it is useless to try to use AI or related concepts when establishing policies. But you need a well-defined problem and something that could be modeled or parameterized in a way that an AI can be used.

 

*) "AI" is currently available, not some fantasy super-advanced future system like in a sci-fi movie. As far as I know, current understanding of for instance complex systems, political systems, and economical systems limits our ability to develop mathematical models that an AI could be based on.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Your questions have one overriding theme in this post and that is, how does the implementation of this globally cooperative ai system resolve competitive protectionism and disputes?

I have proposed that the system would augment policy and political decisions in an advisory role independently in each nation however it would aim to benefit the entire globe and that it would also consult and cooperate with other nodes around the globe through a neutral nation hub such as Ireland or Switzerland. But as you point out, would the ancient competitiveness, mistrust, disputes, and conflicts between nations persist and ultimately render the system as an expensive white elephant? I think you have identified the critical crux of the entire concept. My generalized feeling is that ultimately the neutrality of the system would have to be trusted and would require an incentive for each nation to adapt the system and that if it were demonstrated that the system benefitted each nation in computer models both financially and in terms of productivity and the quality of life of their citizens it would increase the likelihood that nations would adapt the concept.

However, if I wanted to speculate on what the future holds it may be the case that ultimately ai will decide................

Edited August 28, 2022 by chrisjones

[chrisjones]

Hi again Ghideon to continue my reply, you specifically asked how the system would resolve disputes in the financial markets. The monetary and commodity markets already employ ai to predict and calculate trades, however, as yet they do not cooperate for the greater global good. In that sense, my idea is a digital (or indeed quantum) modern updated improvement of game theory. I think the majority of humanity has a strong sense of fairness at least if they feel that they have been cheated it often triggers a powerful and visceral sense of anger and retaliation. It goes to the core psychological process of disputes and conflicts. I think if it were demonstrated that this ai system were a fair arbiter in dispute decisions those natural emotions of anger and retaliation would be calmed and placated.

Edited August 28, 2022 by chrisjones

[dimreepr]

10 hours ago, chrisjones said:

However, if I wanted to speculate on what the future holds it may be the case that ultimately ai will decide

We'd have to trust it first...

[iNow]

10 hours ago, chrisjones said:

I think if it were demonstrated that this ai system were a fair arbiter in dispute decisions those natural emotions of anger and retaliation would be calmed and placated.

You assertion rests on a foundational premise that there is some universal and all-encompassing measure of fairness, but the sense of fairness is always relative to the individual or local system.

In other words, it’s subjective, not objective, and therefore your idea of the masses being placated by this approach strikes me as unrealistic to the point of being Pollyannish.  

Edited August 28, 2022 by iNow

[chrisjones]

Hi INOW In response to your reply:

 

I said I think if it were demonstrated that this ai system were a fair arbiter in dispute decisions those natural emotions of anger and retaliation would be calmed and placated.

You replied: Your assertion rests on a foundational premise that there is some universal and all-encompassing measure of fairness, but the sense of fairness is always relative to the individual or local system.

In other words, it’s subjective, not objective, and therefore your idea of the masses being placated by this approach strikes me as unrealistic to the point of being Pollyannish.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Jones : Fairness has a plethora of connotations, however, if fairness is given a more narrow criteria tailored to augment a specific process and proven to be accurate, such as World cup goal-line technology, it is more likely to be accepted by the masses. Football Goal-line technology and similar technology have been employed and deployed for some time in many sports. Initially rubbished as an inaccurate gimmick, it is now accepted in sport. 

If a similar but more intelligent algorithmic technology were included to resolve disputes by a digital and or quantum computer system as part of a much larger cooperative and globally distributed system somewhat based on a game theory, I think it would also be largely accepted by humanity if it were proven to be accurate and fair in the context of many potential tasks and the specific purpose of each task.

However  perception of fairness is not globally uniform, fairness is applied differently in Muslim countries for example. Therefore I would propose that this system would also calculate and accommodate these variables whilst calculating the resolution of a globally inclusive  task.


 

Edited August 28, 2022 by chrisjones

[iNow]

The point is: Fairness must be defined in a way that can be metered / measured, and different people will have differing opinions on how much weight each variable should carry in the final calculation (or even which variables to calculate at all). For instance: 

P1 might say: Orange = Fair

P2 might say: Nuh Uh… Hippopotamus = Fair

P3 might say: Fairness = Balanced plates of savory crepes for starving children

P4 might be sitting there oblivious with his finger up his nose.

 

You: Aha! This AI has the ONE answer to “fairness” despite each of your definitions being incongruent, inconsistent, and mutually exclusive of one another. 

Are you familiar with the concept of snake oil sales? 

[chrisjones]

Hi again INOW I'm tired and going to bed shortly so I'll keep it short and sweet. But honestly explaining everything in ABC fashion to people that haven't quite grasped the concept will I suspect be rather laborious, and I was hoping for a Ph.D. or two to comment, however, here goes.............

 

You said: 

The point is: Fairness must be defined in a way that can be metered / measured, and different people will have differing opinions on how much weight each variable should carry in the final calculation (or even which variables to calculate at all). For instance: 

P1 might say: Orange = Fair

P2 might say: Nuh Uh… Hippopotamus = Fair

P3 might say: Fairness = Balanced plates of savory crepes for starving children

P4 might be sitting there oblivious with his finger up his nose.

 

You: Aha! This AI has the ONE answer to “fairness” despite each of your definitions being incongruent, inconsistent, and mutually exclusive of one another. 

Are you familiar with the concept of snake oil sales? 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

Chris Jones: Rules are applied to many activities including this forum, from sports to the military, religion and millions more, each ruleset has a specific purpose to achieve a specific outcome. One could then argue that when disputes arise the ruleset or law is consulted and applied and that it represents a form of fairness and fair play, however, those same activities would rapidly descend into chaos in the absence of rules or laws.

Let's take agriculture in the context of my idea for example. There are millions of variables in agriculture but as we see in our current agricultural ruleset and law that the ruleset to govern agriculture has been fine-tuned to filter out many frivolous variables to keep the process practical and efficient to a large extent, however as we can see it still requires improvement in regards to agricultural pollution of our waterways and even the distribution of fertilizers to name but a few.

How could my system be applied to these issues on a national level for example?

To keep it short, my system could organize the distribution of natural fertilizer and even calculate the amount of fertilizer that should be applied to fields near waterways to avoid oversaturating the field to prevent polluting runoff in our waterways. 

But does the example pertain to fairness?

Currently, distribution and application of natural fertilizers is chaotic, biased and disorganized based primarily on the proximity to local supplies such as farms near a poultry farm for example, and due to cash incentives, those farmers tend to over-apply poultry waste fertilizer to their fields and therefore the rain runoff pollutes local waterways. Likewise, there are many farms further away from such sources of fertilizers that are struggling to purchase expensive fertilizers. I would consider this an (unfair system).

How does this example apply to my idea, and does it apply both nationally and internationally?

The idea is that my system could remove the unfairness by organizing the distribution of fertilizers nationally. But how does this apply internationally? I have proposed an international global ai system that is distributed in each country around the globe with the ability to cooperate with each node of the system in each country through a hub in a neutral country such as Ireland or Switzerland. And in this example my system would organize both the international and national distribution of fertilizers, to create a fair and efficient, and environmentally preferable distribution of fertilizers, therefore, maximizing yield, profit and output for each farmer. I would consider this a (fair system)

Goodnight I'm going to bed it's 2.30 am here. :0)

[iNow]

27 minutes ago, chrisjones said:

honestly explaining everything in ABC fashion to people that haven't quite grasped the concept will I suspect be rather laborious, and I was hoping for a Ph.D. or two to comment

There’s nothing hard about your concept. Your concept is that you’ll release the AI and the world will thank you while showering you with rainbows and unicorns.

Your entire premise requires full faith and trust from a diverse and varied global population, and it requires that trust be placed into a still not yet designed, still not yet built, still not yet trained AI.

What precisely requires me to show you a PhD before you accept that you’re trying to sell us digital Jesus or ML Mohammed?

I mean seriously, dude. It’s hard to take your claims of super advanced societal advancement through vaporware technology at all seriously when you can’t even figure out the quote function on a 2 decade old discussion forum platform. 

29 minutes ago, chrisjones said:

How could my system be applied to these issues on a national level for example?

You measure the nutrient content of the soil and local rainfall. It’s not as hard as you make it out, and farmers are already using AI to help them decide which supplements their crops need, exactly what day to plant, and how to maximize yields. 

30 minutes ago, chrisjones said:

The idea is that my system could remove the unfairness

Yes. I heard you the first time, but you didn’t hear me when I responded.

There’s no universal measure of fairness. Ask 10 different people what fairness means and ideas of equity will be tossed about, but if you ask them how to measure it you’ll get 10 different answers. The AI won’t be able to learn in the way you think unless you can clearly define for it what success and what failure look like. 

32 minutes ago, chrisjones said:

But how does this apply internationally?

Doesn’t matter. You couldn’t even get this to work at the country, state, city, or even neighborhood level. Hell, I bet it’d even fail within a single family household. Those family members all have different ideas of how fairness should be realized. 

Edited August 29, 2022 by iNow

[Ghideon]

On 8/28/2022 at 3:35 AM, chrisjones said:

Hi Gideon I can't seem to quote your post

 

Suggestion: Go to the sandbox topic in this forum, there you can learn how to use the forum features.

6 hours ago, chrisjones said:

I have proposed an international global ai system that is distributed in each country around the globe with the ability to cooperate with each node of the system in each country through a hub in a neutral country such as Ireland or Switzerland.

Your idea sounds like a paradox, it requires huge improvements in international affairs, globally and regionally and trust in some organisation that will create this AI. But if that can be achieved there is no need for your proposed AI system anymore, the problem you wish to adress is already solved when establishing the model(s) used in the system.

It sounds like you want an improved version of the United Nations* and then let them create a digital, "AI"-based, version of the United Nations.

 

*) Including it's specialised agencies and programmes

[chrisjones]

Hi INOW you have actually crafted a brilliant reply and I will attempt to answer each of your points, I have loaded up on nicotine and caffeine this morning to drag myself out of my torpor so hopefully, my replies will be somewhat articulate and self-explanatory.

You said: There’s nothing hard about your concept.

My reply: Good that means I have done my job.

You said: What precisely requires me to show you a PhD before you accept that you’re trying to sell us digital Jesus or ML Mohammed?

My reply: This is actually a brilliant observation however I am a very much flawed character and far from being a revered prophet. However, I have what is called a vasovagal syncope, and several weeks ago I coughed and hit the deck face down and blacked out. But whilst I was blacked out for 40 seconds I heard the voices of thousands of people all at once. This experience has had a profound impact on me so I suppose you could say that just like John Belushi in the film the Blues Brothers I Have  Seen The Light ! and I'm on a mission from God. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

You said: I mean seriously, dude. It’s hard to take your claims of super advanced societal advancement through vaporware technology at all seriously when you can’t even figure out the quote function on a 2 decade old discussion forum platform.

My reply: I have a twenty-year history of sharing ideas online in the hope that somebody more equipt than myself could take the idea forward and develop it. Indeed several of my ideas have been developed and claimed by other people. However, I see it as akin to throwing a pebble into a vast pool of water in the hope that one of the ripples will wash over the feet of a person infinitely more qualified and equipt than myself.

You said: You measure the nutrient content of the soil and local rainfall. It’s not as hard as you make it out, and farmers are already using AI to help them decide which supplements their crops need, exactly what day to plant, and how to maximize yields. 

My reply: In this thread, I am attempting to explain a concept that has millions of variables so for practicable purposes I need to deliver the general thrust of my idea. However in the context of the agricultural example I gave you to explain how this system could be applied and deployed, then yes you are correct there are other variables such as water distribution, weather patterns, accelerating climate variables, and indeed soil health and husbandry to name but a few examples.

You said: 

Yes. I heard you the first time, but you didn’t hear me when I responded.

There’s no universal measure of fairness. Ask 10 different people what fairness means and ideas of equity will be tossed about, but if you ask them how to measure it you’ll get 10 different answers. The AI won’t be able to learn in the way you think unless you can clearly define for it what success and what failure look like. 

My reply: I have explained the concept of how a specific fairness criteria could be employed in several extensive replies to you, however, I'm not going to spend days trying to sway your opinion on the subject so will stop trying to flog a dead horse with you :0)

You said:Doesn’t matter. You couldn’t even get this to work at the country, state, city, or even neighborhood level. Hell, I bet it’d even fail within a single family household. Those family members all have different ideas of how fairness should be realized. 

My reply: I'm going to have a glass of fizzy pepsi and a cigarette and will reply to Ghideons post later :0)
 

[iNow]

3 hours ago, chrisjones said:

I was blacked out for 40 seconds I heard the voices of thousands of people all at once. This experience has had a profound impact on me so I suppose you could say that just like John Belushi in the film the Blues Brothers I Have  Seen The Light ! and I'm on a mission from God.

Oh, my. Okay then. 

3 hours ago, chrisjones said:

I'm not going to spend days trying to sway your opinion on the subject so will stop trying to flog a dead horse with you

So you came to a discussion forum to NOT discuss your idea with others showing interest in it? Fascinating. 

3 hours ago, chrisjones said:

I'm going to have a glass of fizzy pepsi and a cigarette

Yawn. Nobody cares. Defend your idea. Answer the questions posed. Or, acknowledge you cannot/will not. 

3 hours ago, chrisjones said:

Hi INOW you have actually crafted a brilliant reply <...> This is actually a brilliant observation

Cheap attempts at flattery won't make me magically forget that you're evading my queries and counterpoints. 

[chrisjones]

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Ghideon said:

 

Suggestion: Go to the sandbox topic in this forum, there you can learn how to use the forum features.

Your idea sounds like a paradox, it requires huge improvements in international affairs, globally and regionally and trust in some organisation that will create this AI. But if that can be achieved there is no need for your proposed AI system anymore, the problem you wish to adress is already solved when establishing the model(s) used in the system.

It sounds like you want an improved version of the United Nations* and then let them create a digital, "AI"-based, version of the United Nations.

 

*) Including it's specialised agencies and programmes

Hi, Ghideon figured out the quote system thanks!

In reply to this post: As with INOW you have identified a fundamental tenet of the underlying dynamics of my proposal. Yes, the processes and calculations of my system could also be mirrored and applied to our current global political system using current practices and debate. But this is not an accidental consequence of the ai system but a natural extension of my proposal. I'm also using the ai concept as a proxy in place of a purely political debate. If I had approached sharing this idea purely in the form of a new political ideology the discussion would have rapidly descended into tit-for-tat partisan chaos.