Artificial Hive Mind Predicts Political Outcomes

[Katharine Hepburn 4,607]

37 minutes ago, Derpplause said:

which is definitely what the US needs, the reason why the 60s were economic good years was because of the investment in the Space Race, which provided a lot of jobs. Also the investment in good high sciences back then was one of the reasons the US economy was thriving.

No that was such a waste of money.  

[Reginald 13,841]

 -mindblown- I was unknowingly actually part of the "hive" that's referenced here, earlier today. I do independent crowdsourcing work through Amazon's Mechanical Turk platform. 

[Voltaire 4,531]

2 minutes ago, Reginald said:

 -mindblown- I was unknowingly actually part of the "hive" that's referenced here, earlier today. I do independent crowdsourcing work through Amazon's Mechanical Turk platform. 

That's really really really awesome!

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

3 hours ago, Economy said:

Yeah technological advancements and productivity gains really drive exonomic growth

 

people fear development because they say robots steal jobs

 

but thats a narrow minded way of looking at it. The economy actually does better as a whole when those advancements come!

Robots did initially take a way automotive jobs when they got integrated into assembly production.  Add computer assisted design to development and computers replaced the human equation again.  Draftsmen are no longer needed.  

People had to develop new job skills get new jobs sure.  But the net result is better auto's for less money than before.  

The economic impact can be summed up in that those who can adapt to change will make out much better then those who cling to the past.  

[Goosey 3,017]

 

 

[Economy 52,861]

11 hours ago, Woolfsmck said:

Robots did initially take a way automotive jobs when they got integrated into assembly production.  Add computer assisted design to development and computers replaced the human equation again.  Draftsmen are no longer needed.  

People had to develop new job skills get new jobs sure.  But the net result is better auto's for less money than before.  

The economic impact can be summed up in that those who can adapt to change will make out much better then those who cling to the past.  

And with the money consumers save they can spend that extra on something else and support another industry

 

maybe they can go out to restaurants a few more times for example and extra waiters are needed for example.

 

what is saved in 1 way results in extra reasources (labor and spending) being available to be allocated elsewhere

 

hence more consumption is possible the more we are able to produce per worker

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

The irony in people agreeing with a hive mind  

[Voltaire 4,531]

5 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

The irony in people agreeing with a hive mind  

It seems to follow the logic really. Not sure how that'd be ironic?

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, Voltaire said:

It seems to follow the logic really. Not sure how that'd be ironic?

Hive minds just collate opinions. They don't predict the future.

[Voltaire 4,531]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

Hive minds don't mean what they're saying is true. It just collates opinions. It doesn't predict the future.

Right, I think everyone understands that we don't currently have the ability to predict the future. What this is doing is using computing and human data to make a best guess. In this case, the technology has a history of outperforming individuals and experts.

I was just saying that it doesn't seem ironic at all, it really follows logically that many people would find some alignment with many of the UNU's assessments. But certainly not everyone, not even within the hive selection itself.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

4 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

What this is doing is using computing and human data to make a best guess. In this case, the technology has a history of outperforming individuals and experts.

It relies on information gathered from individuals. The veracity of that information is not checked.

Furthermore, it does not collect all necessary context for opinions.

For example, most liberals agree with Sanders ideas. Most don't agree with the implementation. Phrase the question in a certain manner and you'll get skewed results. 

Maybe I misspoke. I found it funny that people agree with a hive mind, not realizing that they are basically perpetuating the hive mind stereotype when they consistently claim otherwise.

[Voltaire 4,531]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

It relies on information gathered from individuals. The veracity of that information is not checked.

Furthermore, it does not collect all necessary context for opinions.

For example, most liberals agree with Sanders ideas. Most don't agree with the implementation. Phrase the question in a certain manner and you'll get skewed results. 

 

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. It's an artificial hive mind that makes predictive guesses based on data. Are you trying to prove that it could be wrong? Of course it can be wrong. Nobody thinks that it couldn't be. Not even its own makers think its infallible. It's a new technology, take it for what it is.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

14 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. It's an artificial hive mind that makes predictive guesses based on data. Are you trying to prove that it could be wrong? Of course it can be wrong. Nobody thinks that it couldn't be. Not even its own makers think its infallible. It's a new technology, take it for what it is.

Well yes. I didn't even dismiss it to begin with so I'm not sure what you've been trying to prove.

I merely commented on how ironic it is that people are using a hivemind in order to justify their own opinions, when confirmation bias is exactly what hive minds are for. (I'm using the figurative meaning of hive mind here by the way)

Perhaps you misunderstood me or I've been phrasing it incorrectly. Also it's shade so don't take it that seriously  

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

1 hour ago, LebaneseDude said:

It relies on information gathered from individuals. The veracity of that information is not checked.

Furthermore, it does not collect all necessary context for opinions.

For example, most liberals agree with Sanders ideas. Most don't agree with the implementation. Phrase the question in a certain manner and you'll get skewed results. 

Maybe I misspoke. I found it funny that people agree with a hive mind, not realizing that they are basically perpetuating the hive mind stereotype when they consistently claim otherwise.

Actually, 'ALL' opinions and info is factored into the percentages ... including false or fabricated misinformation.... I suppose if a large group of wouldbe fakers flooded the data base it could schew the outcome, but veracity or not is included.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

47 minutes ago, Woolfsmck said:

Actually, 'ALL' opinions and info is factored into the percentages ... including false or fabricated misinformation.... I suppose if a large group of wouldbe fakers flooded the data base it could schew the outcome, but veracity or not is included.

Who's to say the opinions are correct or not misinformed?

Who's to say that the majority of the "hive mind" indeed hold correct or informed opinions based on knowledge rather than assumptions?

What's the population of this hive mind? Are they all Americans? Are they all from the same demographic? Are they all young? Are they mixed?

What are their education levels? How well do they know what they're talking about? Can they point out India on a map?

So many questions. None answered. 

Perhaps the questions that this "technology" (better word is construct) were given were simply obvious projections not deterred by the hesitance that experts hold when dealing with matters. People tend to think their knowledge is absolute while experts in those fields understand what margins of error are and are not as likely to claim opinions as facts (unless they're super biased).

Furthermore, attempting to compare their results to the "experts" is fallacious in itself. You can't compare averages. That doesn't work, especially when the standard deviations are also vastly different.

My engineer brain does not comprehend this construct. It makes no sense. Opinions are still opinions and conclusions from said opinions can suffer from group-think fallacies.