genidma
commented
8 months ago Steps to AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) would enable one of the multiple realities. In random order:
- An open and collaborative sphere, where humans and AIs can collaborate. Where the rewards are meted in an equitable manner.
- A somewhat close sphere that could give birth to entrenched interest. This could cause problems down the line, as the fruits of the economic activity may not trickle down. As well, access to the development may not be for everyone and by virtue of the design
- Existing problems and as it relates to trade, trade-routes, geopolitics need to be considered. I am not sure how the steps to AGI will help solve these problems. I mean, is it a good idea to say that all problems will be solved magically?
- I think, overall, we need to ask the question of 'how do we communicate.' Where education is a big part. Because education and our upbringing helps enable our world-view. I often meet folks from different part of the world who do not know that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old, that it takes roughly about 230 million years for the solar system to orbit the galaxy, that there is a blackhole in the middle of the galaxy and the galaxy exists, that dinosaurs roamed the planet about 66 million years ago and were wiped out by a single event. Basically there are many folks on our planet, in all regions of the world, who have a worldview that could have been the worldview 500 years ago or even 10,000 years ago. This is a question of education. Because only an educated worldly population can make meaningful decisions.
I have an idea of buildings that are designed to foster communications between people from many different parts of the world. Initially conceived as a series of ideas in order to enable better culture practices within an organization and then help with effective foreign policy (foreign policy in the age of increasing automation and exponential change.)
Julian-Dumitrascu
Whether it’s communication or telecommunication and we discuss business or the weather, it’s natural for people to communicate. We start from the need to express ourselves and we end up building conversations. Conversations build dialogues. As people communicate, they start coordinating their actions. They agree to become activity partners, trading partners, or life partners. In a way, everyone has dialogues with activity partners. Trading includes some activities. With life partners we do many things in what we call our free time or our spare time. (Aren’t we free when we work? Is my free time something like a spare tire or the main time of my life?) Some usual activities are to have others bring into our households water, food, energy, textile and chemical products, furniture, tools, data, etc. (and to move such things out of our households). They do it when we give them something in exchange, usually money. To earn this money, we serve other households. How we choose these services influences the extent to which we enjoy the benefits we seek.
How do you choose what to buy? How much of a choice do you feel you have?
It’s useful to choose starting from the related benefits that you seek. Sometimes one is not fully aware of what benefit one seeks, or one hasn’t stated explicitly that they seek a certain benefit. Other times it is obvious what benefit one seeks. When we place an order, it is useful to write down the purposes for which one wants that service. The user or the provider can write it down. When you want to share a benefit you seek, you can e.g.: a. schedule a talk b. share words you have said or written about it You can include any other data in any format. You can allow others to join our conversation. Example: One can find it useful to communicate publicly about something. I like it about GitHub that it lets us choose whether we respond publicly or privately to a message: we can reference a comment in a new issue. (I also like the fact that GitHub shows which issues link to the issue it is displaying.) c. start here a public conversation about a certain benefit We can help you manage any content or data sets e.g. about your benefits as usefully as possible. For instance, we can make it easy to use by (potential) providers. We’ve seen that people like it when they avoid repeating themselves. You can take a moment to share a well-structured data set instead of talking with provider 1, writing an e-mail message to provider 2, and using another method to inform provider 3. We help people avoid some efforts and some costs.
It is useful to make it easy for each provider to let you know to what extent they can help you get each benefit. This extent one can compare to the desired extent; “default value”: 100%. One can also compare the benefit-cost ratios of the service offers providers make.
Considerations for when we buy: 3.1 It seems easy to follow one’s inclination to ask providers for information. One has in general the inclination to ask questions. For some reason, our nervous system keeps trying to collect information. To the extent that we succumb to this pressure, we risk incurring higher costs than we need to: we can end up collecting more information than we need or when we don’t really need it. To benefit more, we take the steps about which I’ve written in sections 1 and 2. 3.2 We enjoy the idea of having a choice (I love it.) until we feel how costly it is to try to make a choice. That was a reason for us to create the service Sol Provider Relationship Management. We can consider more providers than any person usually finds by themselves, so you actually have an even broader choice. At the same time, we keep the costs of choosing under control, and we help people focus on the services that prove most useful to them. 3.3 As anybody else who cares about a matter and tries to optimise some activities, we excel at evaluating providers of services and providers of products. At least 2 people have specialised in certain services or products. We are managing large amounts of data. As with other services, it is cheaper to buy the service than to provide the service. In our case, it is cheaper to buy a benefit-cost analysis that helps you choose a provider than to become a professional evaluator of providers. We can discuss how you choose your providers and see to what extent we can increase the benefit-cost ratio of your purchases. 3.4 When somebody lets us know that a service can be useful to us and that they can provide this service, we can react like this: “I will never buy such a service!” I’ve exaggerated so that we focus on the strong reaction one can have when one fears something. Before we make statements about what one can fear in such a situation, we can discuss the fact that there is room for improving the general relationship between the buyer and the seller because some salespeople have taken a model that includes: a. being pushy This creates discomfort in our fellow human beings. Nobody is a “buyer” or a “seller” because any adult human being is probable to buy something and to provide some service. What if we looked at one another as peers instead of “buyers” and “sellers”? When someone presents a service, do they imagine that each person who could use it has a capital that allows them not to work? When someone wants to use a service, do they imagine that no provider of that service buys anything? b. Some sellers might imagine that they are on a stage when they communicate with customers. The unnecessary pressure that a team put on themselves when they present their services might be released by them treating a provider poorly sometimes. Why would one treat a provider poorly when there are no providers? Because one wants to be treated poorly by one’s customers? I don’t believe people want to be treated poorly. We’re willing to help improve any relationship, so that the participants benefit more from it. c. stating reasons to buy their service People usually want to discuss achieving their goals before deciding on who does what. One can be afraid that a salesperson thinks about increasing the salesperson’s capital more than about one achieving one’s goals under the best possible terms. Such things can result in a huge failure: each human being tries to buy something while they find it difficult to trust anybody. We’d like to “move the needle” towards balance, so that communication improves, trust increases, and anybody can trade more usefully.
When selling something, it’s useful to avoid some actions we’ve seen taken: 4.1 When somebody asks the seller about the price, the seller shares it. 4.1.1 I don’t refer to the prices displayed in a Web store. There are enough other cases to discuss.
It seems unfortunate that product pages have this structure:
a. product name
b. images and sounds about the product
Objections start here:
c. price
What the fuck? Do I really know for what I’m paying?
d. a second price, more difficult to read
I don’t give a fuck about it.
Do you want to see a second price in our Web store? Examples: old price, price suggested by the provider
e. In the space in which you’d expect a description, you can find an advertisement.
Fuck that! I want actual descriptions that help me understand what is offered. What about you?
f. a table with characteristics and values
It is useful in many cases. I have the feeling it should be easier to reach. What do you feel?
We can discuss redesigning these pages.
4.1.2 We want so badly to get a feeling of the value for money that we sometimes ask about the price before we make it clear what we want to buy. It is possible that someone asks about the price before they are certain that they should seek a certain benefit now, or before they are sure they have the best plan to get this benefit. For these reasons and for other reasons, they might not use this information now, and they might not use it later, either. Moreover, sharing any information before communicating sufficiently with a customer about their goals and plans can give them a false impression of you and your offerings. This can result in them never using such a service or using a similar service provided by someone else. This can be worse for them and worse for you. We try to agree with people on what is best for the service user. The service user can be a Sol team or anybody else. It is useful to avoid tensions between people, e.g. between a person who is trying to place an order and a service provider. Example: It is useful to agree on how to make decisions. Each individual can decide on what they buy for themselves (and for their (foster) children). Irrespective of how beneficially they spend their money, they can decide how much money they give to whom when. Each decision-maker can task at least one other person to think, plan, and decide together with them. These parties agree on the extent to which each of them is going to influence each decision and each part of the plan. I like thinking together with others. I feel that I am pretty open to consulting with others, so consultants are welcome to communicate with me. Our conversations can result in transactions. I want to understand your related feelings, views, and habits, so that I adapt to them in the context of this conversation. 4.2 A customer asks for information that is (pretty) irrelevant. You can help them focus on getting their benefits. 4.3 A customer asks you for information about you, your company, or your services. 4.3.1 It is useful to take the steps about which I’ve written in sections 1 and 2, and to agree on a data management procedure. Some people complained that their information was abused. We can help you manage data more beneficially. 4.3.2 When you see that someone wants an evaluation of your services, you or that person can order an objective evaluation with Sol Provider Relationship Management. We help gladly bring and keep the relationship with a service provider to the desired quality.