107
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by althea_vestrid@lemmy.world to c/fediverse@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com 2 points 1 year ago

The ideal is fine but in conjuction with that there are two downsides as well. A consolidated datacenter does hold onto the efficiencies of scale in many facets, multiple small instances require more boxes using more resources to iperate and the inconsistent retrieval and bandwidth attached will have an effect. The other is the political realm, where regulators can be readily bought those with resources can and will make things more difficult if they feel existentially threatened. Loo at the fight that hollywood amd the music industry put up against just the pirate bay alone for an example of what the distributed web is up against. The fact that there's not so much gray area of activity going on is secondary to the fact that it challenges the established systems.

[-] Uli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

It's an uphill battle for sure. We gain resiliency from decentralization, but you're right that there is a cost in efficiency. Long-term, we should work to achieve collective ownership of centralized data centers, to literally seize the means of our content production.

But we can't currently afford the upfront cost such an endeavor takes, even collectively. The ruling class has gone far to ensure our collective means reach not much further than the ends of our own tables. But I still have hope for what we can achieve.

Even if we don't yet have the resources or the efficiency, one thing we can start working on already is the political infrastructure. Obviously, the official government is laden with corruption. And we can dream about overturning Citizens United, but we shouldn't be holding our breath. While we must keep fighting that fight, we can simultaneously devote time to learning how to govern ourselves.

What is fair? What are rights? What is the value of a person's time? Of a person's life? What is a person? When does an idea stop belonging to an individual and start belonging to everyone?

We can codify these things, and we can even make algorithms that compare our opinions on these subjects and build up logical governing rules over time to maximize fulfillment for everyone. But one thing that's almost impossible to do is to protect our new society from corruption. We can make the perfect voting system and even if we manage to successfully detect and remove bots, the influence of capitalist ideology penetrates our zeitgeist deeply. Our TV, music, religions, and games while often poking fun at the beast are all intrinsically part of it.

So, what do we do? I think we should accept that part of ourselves. The part that corrupts us, that loves the wars, the pollution, the lack of education. The side of our society that glorifies the billionaire class and will lash out if in mortal danger.

Because I think you're absolutely right. The more of a threat we appear to be, the more they will come after us. So, we need to make our endeavors look and act like theirs. Real businesses with a real regard for efficiency and profit margins.

But instead of a CEO and a board of directors, we place an artificial intelligence. And instead of trying to maximize profits for investors, we train our AI to maximize profits for workers. And each worker gets a say in the design of the AI, in proportion to the amount of work they do for the company. The work they do is measured as a calculation of how much success they make for the company. Success being a combined metric of estimated financial profit merged with quantifiable improvement in quality of life for our customers.

It's not a corruption-proof system, but I think allowing real workers to collectively train an AI boss is a good way of combating the effects of corruption in realtime. If I were a worker in such a system, I would implore our AI CEO to classify any livestock in our farms as customers and workers with rights proportional to their brain sizes when compared with our own. So, making lives better for cattle on farms would directly affect the perceived value of the worker who made those changes. This might make our products more expensive when compared to a capitalist model, but if a worker implements the innovation of livestreams from all our livestock to show how fulfilled they are, and the biodiversity/ carbon capture solutions we have crafted into their environments, customers may be willing to pay for a food with less attached guilt, especially if they are entitled to larger profit shares from their own AI employers than in the capitalist model. And if our customers are perceived to be happier as a result, the workers who implemented the livestreams would be rewarded in kind.

If capitalists can game that system by creating bots which produce quantifiable work and are compensated in kind, we can still utilize that labor. If we set the initial conditions correctly, this should result in a workless society where no human has or needs money. Because at the end of that road, no humans can find any appreciable amount of work to do, so the only purpose they serve is to be customers for the perfected AI companies. And because all efficiencies have already been carved out by the capitalist bots, the only way for the bots to make additional profit is to make quality of life improvements for the customers. We become the livestock, with all our needs met. The rich become the workers, toiling to find something to do with their money.

And that may not seem like the perfect end, but maybe it's the best we can hope for. The capitalists finally have all the money. But they've unwittingly taken part in our utopia. And we didn't have to eat them after all. We just have to find a way of quantifying fairness.

If we can train an AI to determine what compensation is a fair reward for any given task, both now and in the future, everything else falls in line. But maybe that's as tautological as saying if we could only root out corruption from the US government, we could get rid of Citizens United. The horse isn't anywhere near that cart. But hey, it's fun to dream.

[-] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

Eh, decentralization can be effective, think about WFH (work from home) and fossil fuel usage. Same general thinking applies... those multiple boxes can be spare cycles in everyone's home.

[-] ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com 1 points 1 year ago

I was thinking more on the lines of containerization vs virtualization vs bare metal in regards to the efficiency. A compute cluster running a stack of containers all backed by a storage area network can handle a pile more transactions than a bunch of desktops all running their own OS with dedicated drives.

The distributed spare cycles thing works well for projects like the FAH or BOINC systems where all are working on a singular project in small pieces but less so for other things just because of the transfer and transaction overhead. Still, it's a fine way to start putting some control back in the user's hands that can be run with a minimal investment.

this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
107 points (98.2% liked)

Fediverse

28388 readers
123 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!

Rules

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS