h a l f b a k e r yi v n i n seeks n e t o
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Everyone today walks around with a device in their
pocket,
that is perpetually requesting, enticing, and desiring just
a
couple swipes of a sweaty thumb, to send its owners
resources to a corporation, requesting power,
requesting bandwidth. This is a heavy dependency on a
wet thumb for
arbitrary thoughts like, 'uh, maybe i
should buy more
broadband so i can log into amazon to buy more hair
laminators.'
Why not do away with all the indecision, delay, and
inefficiencies and use laws for corporation formation to
build single unit consumer corporations that are legally
standalone entities that can buy houses, start businesses,
hire, fire, buy toilet paper, start financial accounts --
without any of the delay having to do with regular visits
to
the bathroom or requirements to exercise to get you
over
that little bit of depression?
This is similar to twitter bots, I suppose, but with the
legal
right to own pets, adopt children, and register a vehicle.
Crucially, they can perform high speed trades; and
purchase exactly what the corporations need purchased.
For instance, Tesla could donate 50,000 corporate
consumers, have them installed in Arizona, and have
them
all develop passive income through high speed
investment
practices and take the profit to buy electric cars. They
could then efficiently drive the cars directly into a
landfill
to reduce Tesla's warrenty burden.
Amazon could do similar, building houses full of Echos
looking after children that get regular purchases of
diapers, cribs, all kinds of toys etc.
Remax would support corporate consumers that would
immediately make decisions - no open homes needed, all
settlements would be within a 5 second period -- and
these
are homes that don't necessarily need anyone to live in
them, so they will never be bothered by mold.
The idea here is not about AI per se, but the legal ability
of
an AI to run independent finances with distinct legal
identity, and align with larger corporations for mutual
benefit.
The economy would be super charged by this - materials
would be both built and consumed at a rate never before
seen.
Nothing but profit!
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
I think Galbraith did this joke in about 1950. Or, if not him, them
maybe David Riesman. |
|
| |
Where's the money backing coming from? Tesla would be buying off itself, no money. Would a corporation give away a large chunk of cash without some sort of tangible return. |
|
| |
Now, because of monetary point schemes, consumers can be classified in specific groups. The corporate consumer could then generate real money from their tagged blocks of real cash generators. The corporate consumer would be a corporate consumer class. Back to middleware I'm afraid. |
|
| |
As humans lose jobs to robots, robots should start to be able to earn their own money. This means an legal entity can be formed around that small financial non-human engine, where all legal responsibility devolves down to that single entity. i.e. if they create a crime, it is actually just their fault. |
|
| |
I suggested a little too strongly that corporations would be setting up these consumers as if they owned them, but instead they would operate more like fan clubs; where they could be organized by a corporation but be financially separate. |
|
| |
Additionally a group of companies could organize to create a conglomerately directed consumer class. Collusion through consumer creation, I suppose. it can be difficult to get some products off the shelf as the consumer environment is not there; people aren't buying x and y, to even think about buying z, simply because of some human-based preference or level of comfort. |
|
| |
If they were able to get a very large and broad corporate consumer base going, then humans could join up with these entities as well to take advantage of bulk buying or tool sharing or neighborhood watch systems. |
|
| |
I know it's a bit of a loose concept, but if you take it to the extreme, what would the perfect corporate entity be, with all human foibles removed? I'm sure there is an entity that could exist and not be human but still buy ebooks and mp3 players and keep the wheels of commerce in play. |
|
| |
//an legal entity can be formed around that small financial non-human engine// |
|
| |
A humanoid female robot has just been given citizenship in Saudi Arabia. It already has more rights than other Saudi women. |
|
| |
This is like a never breaking record player. What is the purpose of the music if no one is there to hear? Alien anthropologists? I've never understood shell coporations with no people, other than to hide something. |
|
| |
After covering needs, money is there for wants. What is the perfect corporate entity going to want? To keep the economy running artificially might still be a downfall for humanity needing to grow above it. |
|
| |
A robot shouldn't get money if it doesn't have the concept or the wants. Needs hopefully are going to be covered by the owner looking after her/his tools. [Max] Sad, Allah needs to make some radical changes. |
|
| |
// What is the perfect corporate entity going to want? // |
|
| |
[wtj] a corporate consumer would still need resources, information, currency. Maybe not fidget spinners but maybe raw steel and bitcoins. Humans are 8 billion or so so strong, they could themselves become currency and resources - i imagine there's a long period of transition while humans are being phased out, where trading in humanity's trappings remains the best course financially. |
|
| |
[max] was the robot given more rights? or has she immediately run afoul of the rights? Also why is the robot being gender-identified as female? Was that a self determination? |
|
| |
[8th] I think that's exactly it, a soul of some kind that lives forever in a bank of machines deep under the rockies. |
|
| |
//[max] was the robot...// |
|
| |
Apparently yes. I does not require a male chaperone in public, is not required to cover its face or dress modestly, and has full citizenship. |
|
| |
And the robot is identified as female because its face was modelled on Audrey Hepburn. |
|
| |
//a corporate consumer would still need resources, information, currency// No. There is no need or want there. It could just sit around doing nothing unless set up and given an initial direction by people. People's wants, your want. |
|
| |
advertisements you mean - we need to target ads at these things. so they know what to buy. |
|
| |