Optimization Revealed

[a_propagandist]

Further Optimization. Expanded scientific exploration and/or Futher human development (mars/other planets etc.) It is all expended at the end of the year. But overall your % of outake is the same.

Doesn't that theoretically mean that everyone takes the same amount as they give? So, it's kinda like an ideal free market, no?

 

[greenpeace]

First of all why did you put up a random mathematical equation? It wasted a couple seconds of my time trying to figure out what you meant by it before I realized its just random

Anyway, what is the point in having to work more than what we think the product is worth? How does having a TV (for example) so great when in reality humans are just as happy without having it.
On a more technical note, how do you objectively varify that someones input is greater than their output? Lets say someone produces steel (lets assume they do it all by themselves for simplicity). They pruduce 100 kilograms of steel every year and the amount they need and use is only 10 kilograms. In that sense they make up for themselves. But they consume a bunch of food, timber, etc. so they lack in that. What is to say that 90 kilograms of steel makes up for their consumption?

 

[LightFang]

Run for something somewhere.

 

[obliterate]

Optimization is starting to sound like communism.

 

[Narz]

Silly stuff. A bloated government trying to control everyone's lives is never efficient. Bureaucrats are the ultimate waste of resources. The idea that governmental testing can correctly discover a person's perfect aptitude is also ridiculous. Sounds like some USSR crap. The main thing that inevitably ends up getting terminated is these types of crackpot governmental schemes. These systems never pay sufficient respect to the complexity of human beings (as individuals and en masse) and always inevitably fail.

 

[Mise]

k = 2pi/lamda , not lamda/2pi .

Hence, the entire thesis is wrong. I didn't bother reading it after seeing that glaring mistake!

 

[Sharwood]

Silly stuff. A bloated government trying to control everyone's lives is never efficient. Bureaucrats are the ultimate waste of resources. The idea that governmental testing can correctly discover a person's perfect aptitude is also ridiculous. Sounds like some USSR crap. The main thing that inevitably ends up getting terminated is these types of crackpot governmental schemes. These systems never pay sufficient respect to the complexity of human beings (as individuals and en masse) and always inevitably fail.

What I've been thinking from the start. Perfect in theory perhaps, but in practice..? Just as flawed - hell, probably more so than most - as every other system of government we've developed.

 

[ArneHD]

It's just a joke from Chazumi's side.

At least, I hope it is.

 

[Sharwood]

It's just a joke from Chazumi's side.

At least, I hope it is.

Doubt it, he's said things similar to this before.

 

[Thorbal]

Optimization is starting to sound like communism.

Like that or the thing we had over here ~seventy years ago, just in a tone more appropriate for marketing purposes.

 

[Shaihulud]

I have only taken a basic course on linear algebra and basic games theory and wants to say that the application of such on human society is wishful dreaming. Human behaviour, nature and everything is too unpredictable. Optimisation as such is used to regulate certain things such as premiums on insurance and investments, but it is never used as a matter of fact.

 

[Sharwood]

I have only taken a basic course on linear algebra and basic games theory and wants to say that the application of such on human society is wishful dreaming. Human behaviour, nature and everything is too unpredictable.

You just haven't developed psycho-history yet. Isaac Asimov showed us the way.

 

[ArneHD]

What is the actual goal of optimization? It seems that producing stuff is the only purpose of the whole thing, and centrally managing production seems rather futile, if not downright impossible on a planetary, or extra planetary level. So why?

 

[Shaihulud]

Its good for planning things with clear data. Lots of companies used it to plan purcahses, productions etc. DHL makes use of it to plan their routes and timetable and they are the best. You can allow for a level of uncertainty, but only in certain areas. People who makes use of it understands it and won't use it beyond breaking point.

You just haven't developed psycho-history yet. Isaac Asimov showed us the way.

Even Foundation had the mule, or did it predict him?

 

[Cutlass]

I'd rather be free.

 

[Chazumi]

Doesn't that theoretically mean that everyone takes the same amount as they give? So, it's kinda like an ideal free market, no?

Those that contribute more, for instance, have a much more specialized job that requires more training, take a slightly higher percentage than someone with a menial job. But that is because their contribution is much higher. At first they would take a minimal percentage to repay the costs of training and education until they are able to perform the position they are assigned, and then once they have repayed the debt and are at 100% Optimization, their percentage goes up to a certain cap, depending on the job.

First of all why did you put up a random mathematical equation? It wasted a couple seconds of my time trying to figure out what you meant by it before I realized its just random

Anyway, what is the point in having to work more than what we think the product is worth? How does having a TV (for example) so great when in reality humans are just as happy without having it.
On a more technical note, how do you objectively varify that someones input is greater than their output? Lets say someone produces steel (lets assume they do it all by themselves for simplicity). They pruduce 100 kilograms of steel every year and the amount they need and use is only 10 kilograms. In that sense they make up for themselves. But they consume a bunch of food, timber, etc. so they lack in that. What is to say that 90 kilograms of steel makes up for their consumption?

Because the Optimized mathematical formula has not, as of yet, been developed. It was merely an image to enhance the presentation.

If you produce 100kg of goods, it is distributed among everyone. So, for instance, if you produce 100kg of whatever, require 5 to sustain yourself, another person needs 10, another person needs 1, this is equated to what percentage you are contributing to Optimization. Now think of all the million things, goods and services required to make the entire machine work. 100kg Produces for X number of people, which is X% of the entire Optimized network, in which you take X% in the form of a credit system that you are able to obtain sustenance for yourself. Remember that the % you take cannot outweigh or be equal to the % you contribute. As far as the mathematical equation that determines what a persons value is worth, I cannot tell you what that is, it's more simple to think of it in terms of actually producing a product, but when it comes to things like services, it gets tricky. Also higher amounts of training would apply a multiplier compared to someone that say, works at a waste recycling plant.

Silly stuff. A bloated government trying to control everyone's lives is never efficient. Bureaucrats are the ultimate waste of resources. The idea that governmental testing can correctly discover a person's perfect aptitude is also ridiculous. Sounds like some USSR crap. The main thing that inevitably ends up getting terminated is these types of crackpot governmental schemes. These systems never pay sufficient respect to the complexity of human beings (as individuals and en masse) and always inevitably fail.

Bureaucrat from Wiki

Max Weber defined a bureaucratic official as the following:[1]

-He is personally free and appointed to his position on the basis of conduct
-He exercises the authority delegated to him in accordance with impersonal rules, and his loyalty is enlisted on behalf of the faithful execution of his official duties
-His appointment and job placement are dependent upon his technical qualifications
-His administrative work is a full-time occupation
-His work is rewarded by a regular salary and prospects of advancement in a lifetime career
-He must exercise his judgment and his skills, but his duty is to place these at the service of a higher authority. Ultimately he is responsible only for the impartial execution of assigned tasks and must sacrifice his personal judgment if it runs counter to his official duties.
-Bureaucratic control is the use of rules, regulations, and formal authority to guide performance. It includes such things as budgets, statistical reports, and performance appraisals to regulate behavior and results.

Few changes I would make:

He is personally free and appointed to his position by ability, not conduct.
His administrative work is a full-time occupation, this is good but would apply to everyone, even with non-administrative jobs.
His work is rewarded by a regular salary, prospects of advancement are not unheard of, but extremely difficult.
The last one is a bit specific towards administrative work, so slightly irrelevant to the whole theory. So if that makes it bureaucratic then I guess it is, though thats what there is termination is for provided they are not productive enough or violate one of the laws of termination.

The government would take your technical strengths into the main factor in assinging you a job, several jobs would normally show up on a list, and the one highest on the list would normally be assigned, though if there is not a shortage in that particular field, the person is free to choose from another on the list, though it may have a lower percentage yeild than your Optimized job.

What I've been thinking from the start. Perfect in theory perhaps, but in practice..? Just as flawed - hell, probably more so than most - as every other system of government we've developed.

Again it is not perfect from the start, it developes into a perfect system, fully Optimal after a few generations and series of terminations. Most forms of this government can be tweaked should it be deemed Optimal as well.

I have only taken a basic course on linear algebra and basic games theory and wants to say that the application of such on human society is wishful dreaming. Human behaviour, nature and everything is too unpredictable. Optimisation as such is used to regulate certain things such as premiums on insurance and investments, but it is never used as a matter of fact.

Most of these can be fixed, but you are right, some things such as nature, at least at this point cannot be predicted. Humans being unpredictable is a given, though after terminations and several generations they will for the most part strive towards continued Optimization, and not do things entirely too crazy. That plus genetic screening would show any instability, and they would be terminated when they are young. There would be Optimal contingency plans regarding unpredictable events in nature.

What is the actual goal of optimization? It seems that producing stuff is the only purpose of the whole thing, and centrally managing production seems rather futile, if not downright impossible on a planetary, or extra planetary level. So why?

Unification of the planet, ensured human survival, and of course, Optimizing all aspects of the human condition.

I'd rather be free.

I am not sure where you go after termination but I hope it is what you wish for.

 

[Perfection]

Silly stuff. A bloated government trying to control everyone's lives is never efficient. Bureaucrats are the ultimate waste of resources. The idea that governmental testing can correctly discover a person's perfect aptitude is also ridiculous. Sounds like some USSR crap. The main thing that inevitably ends up getting terminated is these types of crackpot governmental schemes. These systems never pay sufficient respect to the complexity of human beings (as individuals and en masse) and always inevitably fail.

Bingo.

 

[bhsup]

If I didn't like what I was doing in this system and decided to buy some land of my own and start my own business doing whatever, but hey it happens to conflict with this optimized government's plan, would I be allowed to do so?

 

[Perfection]

Let me give an example about how silly your thing is: retirement.

I know plenty of people who work their butts off for retirement, the prospect of being able to relax and do the things one likes is a very powerful prospect that is highly motivating. Optimization eliminates that prospect. And just because retired people may not be productive members of the economic engine, they are far from useless. My life is quite a bit richer through interaction with my now retired grandparents.

In conclusion, "optimization" as you call it is suboptimal.

 

[Chazumi]

If I didn't like what I was doing in this system and decided to buy some land of my own and start my own business doing whatever, but hey it happens to conflict with this optimized government's plan, would I be allowed to do so?

If you are unhappy with your position in the Optimized society, you can apply for reassignment. With approval you would be retrained and start at your new assignment, though your percentage of take-home would be severely reduced to repay the retraining costs. Owning land of your own does not exist.

Let me give an example about how silly your thing is: retirement.

I know plenty of people who work their butts off for retirement, the prospect of being able to relax and do the things one likes is a very powerful prospect that is highly motivating. Optimization eliminates that prospect. And just because retired people may not be productive members of the economic engine, they are far from useless. My life is quite a bit richer through interaction with my now retired grandparents.

In conclusion, "optimization" as you call it is suboptimal.

Mandatory retirement funds are deducted from yearly percentage yeilds, and a small section of the planet will be devoted entirely to post-Optimals to live out their days. They are still subjugated to the rules of termination, although because they have deposited a percentage of their production yearly into a post-Optimal fund, they have a certain number of years to maintain themselves, if expenses to sustain them medically get out of hand, they will be terminated. Sub-Optimal anomalies in this system will be Optimized.