On today’s low ROI poly-ticks

Opinion:

If we can’t name things for what they are, they have power over us. “Feelings buried alive never die.” Although sometimes it’s wise to not use certain labels in certain contexts 🙂

It’s not about the candidates, nor their controllers. It’s the overall trend (cycles), which manifest everything. Charles Nennar’s June 6, 2016 interview: http://charlesnenner.com/videos/# 7:45, 19:00 and Martin Armstrong say the same thing. “The fed is not ____ interest rates, interest rates ____ on their own accord. The fed takes credit for the “good” changes, and blame others for the “bad” changes.

Core problem: mislabeling differences: 3 levels of understanding:
· Basic: The lower vibrations don’t need a story. it’s either make it to the next day or not. Difference = either existence, or annihilation. 1 or 0.
· Abstract: The middle vibrations are busy substituting old stories with new stories (beliefs). Difference has a localized “meaning”. Trouble happens when we try to feel good by forcing others to align with our story, instead of us aligning with source.
· Emergence: The higher vibrations “just are”. Difference “just is”. Everyone describes this feeling of laminar flow of high energy as “bliss”.

The goal is not for the light to “win”, because that story / belief binds into duality. Actually, there is no goal! Taleb:

Antifragility is beyond resilience or robustness. The resilient resists shocks and stays the same; the antifragile gets better. This property is behind everything that has changed with time: EVOLUTION, culture, ideas… The antifragile loves randomness and uncertainty, which also means—crucially—a love of errors, a certain class of errors. Antifragility has a singular property of allowing us to DEAL WITH THE UNKNOWN, to do things without understanding them—and do them well.

“Intelligence” is a PROCESS that maximizes future options within a context and is an emergent property. 

The process is to integrate the dark and the light. We often fear talking about their dark, because it reminds us of our dark that we are busy rejecting. How to integrate? Align with our greater self (source) so that we can see our forest, and our trees, concurrently without making some “good” and some “bad”. Preferences and discernment are fine, it’s judgement that binds.

Right now the overall trend is moving from centralized control to decentralized control due to economics and cycles. The relatively low ROI of force (~central control) compared to higher ROI of agreements is being exacerbated by increasing rates of change. Gold and power has flowed East to where it is more effectively used. Central control has squandered its resources on low ROI things, like defending the petrodollar, and thus limited its options.

The adaptable ones, big and small, either overtly, or instinctually, recognize this trend change and act accordingly. The “losers” will fight the trend with linguistics like: “swim up stream”, “bad luck”, “nothing seems to work”. The “winners” seem to “have the wind at their back”, “are fortunate”. Because…

Society is a Complex Adaptive System. CAS’s iterate ~3 simple initial conditions over time. Like a mountain stream, as the flow matures, many niches emerge that create their own starting points of ~3 conditions, creating ecosystems.

“Poverty” is not a problem, it’s a result of specific iterating initial conditions. Poverty can be reduced downstream at the manifestation level, but only via a constant input of resources. Or, the initial conditions can be changed to ones that don’t create poverty. Why “start over” works better than “reform”.

Intelligence is an emergent property of CAS’s. It comes from a critical mass of connections (and nodes). That’s why “they” (representatives of our collective ego) want to keep masses fragmented (dumb), and small: reduces emergence (serendipity, flow, and “miracles”).

The more simple and mechanical (“dumb”) a system is, the more it manifests a normal, and predictable, distribution. Cause and effect are closely linked. (Psychologically easy to control via stimulus and response.) CAS’s like weather, societies, and stock markets, have fat tail distributions (black swans, serendipity, emergence, inspiration). Those causes and effects are often only understandable in hindsight, if ever. Some people can be confused (when not aligned with their source), scared, and want protection from change. Still psychologically easy to control. “I’ll take care of this confusion for you, for a small fee.”

Those aligned with source are UNCONTROLLABLE (and therefore terrifying to the lower vibrations) since they don’t need a story of cause and effect in order to “do the right thing”. “Saints” rise above cycles by integrating their selves.

Manipulators deny / denigrate your internal source to sell you their external “source”. Saints freely affirm your source is inside of you and working just fine.

The 3 initial conditions for a thriving society are practical:
– Private property. Cells have to have well functioning semi-permiable membranes to work. People need functioning boundaries to work.
– Add value first. (~Transparency.) If no one shows their cards, everything is under the table and has lower overall ROI. Don’t ask how you can “get” a job from a company. Start “adding” value to the company.
– Everything has a context. 10 blind people will never argue about their part of the elephant if they know it’s an elephant ahead of time. Instead they will share what they find. Context gives structure and place, which gives meaning, which reduces ambiguity / uncertainty.

in other words, if the d-elites can’t figure out how to kill off half of us pretty rapidly, the lower ROI group will be superseded by the higher ROI group. Someday that relatively higher group will be superseded by an even higher ROI group. Or, we could just hit a phase change to where we are able to coexist more effectively. I think this is what Clif refers to when he says both groups might lose.

Anyway, that is the project I have been working on for so long. Societies’ current system for allocating resources is called government. It has a relatively lower ROI than Nature’s OS (evolution), which is why gov always resets. (gov is a teenage subset of evolution. The phase change would be the teen finally reaching adulthood.) I’m making nature’s OS available for practical use. But it’s only 20% coded 🙂 An integrated market means, no one can manipulate from the shadows, nor fall though the cracks because that stuff is way too low ROI. None of this is rocket science. It’s just integrating what has been known for 30+ years in a practical and friendly package.
[url]http://www.castpoints.com[/url]

ps. Why voting has a low ROI for allocating resource:
– We are good with 1 to 1 communication. Face to face, phone, email.
– Also good at 1 to many communication. TV, books, net.
– Okay with many to 1 communication — but only up to roughly 150 to 1. Because Dunbar’s number: “a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships.” So once even a well meaning person has to deal with more than roughly 150 other people, they can’t, and naturally will start focusing / identifying with a subset.

Advertisements

What politicians could be doing to lead the pack…

Below is the letter I wrote to a semi local person wanting to be a county representative and was interested in my support. I basically asked him to put his money where his mouth is and… never heard back.


 

Hi! I would love to see a Castpoints framework used in the political area by people of integrity!  You would naturally be able to shift discussion from rhetoric to useful action and fact based reference points. It would send shockwaves to the top levels while attracting lots of popular support since people would know that for once they were not being used and abused.

If interested, I did a blog post on Castpoints applied to gov.

A few basic practical principles were actually implemented via “Sandy Springs, Georgia: The City that Outsourced Everything” with great results.

One thing you can do to instantly differentiate yourself from the whole political spectrum is say something like, “I will get XYZ roads fixed up to this xyz standard, by 12/31/2016, or else xyz charity gets half my liquid net worth and I spend 30 days in jail at night and pick up trash during the day.. You won’t have the support of a built Castpoints framework to protect you from people wanting to see you fail so you would have to be a bit crafty. But you might be the first politician in history that attaches an “or else” to their promises. It could be a big media event too — like you give the local sheriff, and or, favorite local charity, the cash to hold as escrow.

Now you undeniably have skin in the game and will be known as the one politician  who puts his money where his mouth is.

Hope this helps! Jeff

A brief compare and contrast with Palantir

Palantir basically puts a user friendly face on data mining (which is a semi dead end due to low ROI) and is apparently pretty advanced.

“With Palantir, investigators are uncovering human trafficking rings, finding exploited children, and unraveling complex financial crimes.

With Castpoints, investigators are not needed, human trafficking rings don’t exist, no one can be exploited, and there are no financial crimes because all of that is uneconomic in a fully integrated market. What conflict resolution is necessary is managed at the source, in context, not centrally. All forms of “gaming the system” to get ahead simply are not useful. The only things that are useful is creating value, and promoting value.

“Humanitarian response organizations are directing resources…”

In Castpoints, locals, with local resources, respond expertly and much faster than outsiders.

“With good data and the right technology, people and institutions today can still solve hard problems and change the world for the better.”

CP: Data is just content. Without context, data has minimal value.

“we make products for human-driven analysis of real-world data”

CP: We help YOU make intelligence driven allocations with goods, services, and decisions.

“Our customers have data and a deep understanding of the problems they face.”

CP: They probably don’t. Like therapy, a person goes in for one thing, but the real thing is almost always much deeper. It’s great to make life incrementally better, but why not go for the jugular?

“We design technology to help institutions protect liberty”

CP: We put the naked engine of liberty in your pocket. “Institution” is usually a code word for bureaucracy. Bureaucracies can’t possibly keep up with the pace of change now.

“We are working to build a future in which public institutions, commercial enterprises, and non-profit organizations can use data to function as they were designed—to fulfill the mandates with which they’ve been entrusted, to deliver value to customers, and to distribute aid to those most in need.”

CP: “to fulfill the mandates”. Why not do your own thing and just add value directly?

– – –

Brigade: democracy starts when you take a stand.

CP: Democracy is mob rule and never works at scale. CP makes it easy to govern ourselves.

“Write your own opinions, then poll your friends to see what they think and why.”

CP: Opinions are like belly buttons, everyone has one. Beliefs are just filters. CP deals with facts, and does not listen to people until they put money where their mouth is.

I downloaded the app. People are still arguing. I have no way to compensate a good post. Either I don’t get it, or this app offers me zero value. I already deleted it.

How to protect everyone at a company from financial stock issues

When a Unicorn Start-Up Stumbles, Its Employees Get Hurt

Different classes of shares produce this: “…employees discovered their Good stock was valued at 44 cents a share… In contrast, preferred stock … was worth almost seven times as much.” Castpoints uses only one kind of share specifically to avoid this kind of issue.

Not applying a tax at the correct time produce this: “…IRS levied taxes on some employees when their Good stock was still considered a valuable asset and worth multiples of what they actually received. One person’s tax bill came to more than $80,000, while another paid more than $150,000…” All parts of a transaction have to be complete when executed, otherwise this can happen. Un-executed parts just increase uncertainty.

Not having a free market produces this: “… with a valuation of more than $1 billion…. Good’s final sale price down to $425 million…” So really, the real valuation was overstated by double. Non free markets produce large arbitrage opportunities. Arbitration narrows the spread between reality and illusion and so reduces uncertainty. 

Not having a free market produces this:”Good’s final sale price down to $425 million… Good’s board had turned down an $825 million cash offer just six months earlier, less than half of the company’s $1.1 billion private valuation.” In a free market (depending if there are agreed upon lockup periods) the stock owners can trade whenever they want. If they thought that deal was a missed opportunity, they could have sold at the private valuation of $1.1 billion. If they agreed with the decision, they can’t blame anyone (unless there was fraud involved).

Not understanding risk produces this: “Yet three days after Good rebuffed CA’s [$825 million] bid, bankers recommended that Good delay the I.P.O. for a month. Several tech companies had gone public for less than their private valuations. When the stock of MobileIron, a publicly traded rival, sank in April, bankers recommended that Good further postpone the offering.” If you are a solid company, you don’t need to ride a frenzy. Hindsight is easy, but the whole IPO process is broken. People who know markets well, the rich traders, always keep risk at the forefront — unless they are making mistakes which gives them something to talk about  in interviews 🙂 Here the risk is a smaller IPO vs. the trend changing to a very poor IPO environment, and while waiting for it to turn around, the company runs out of cash. A good trading rule of thumb if you don’t know exactly what you are doing: If you get a windfall, say thank you, and exit the trade ASAP! Windfalls are rare. Don’t waste them like I did, twice!

Not having transparency produces this: “Employees had little idea that an outside appraisal firm had valued Good at $434 million.” In CP, everyone in a role can see the role’s cash flows and ROI’s. And the roles 1 node above and below. So if words don’t match reality, it’s simple to know.

Not having a system that transparently suggests best practices produces this: “We listened to these executives and, in the end, incurred huge tax bills because we trusted them,” Mr. Parks said. “Employees essentially ended up paying to work for the company.”

All the above produces a messy aftermath: “…the lawyer representing Mr. Bogosian and the institutions, said that “managers and controlling shareholders may not put their interests ahead of the minority owners of the company.” ” Good luck defining all those terms. Plus, it’s not effective —  not how nature works, to put other’s interests before your own. That’s why when masks pop out of the overhead compartment, you put yours on first. The share structure should be such that everyones’ interests are aligned by default.

Why people’s laws don’t work: “They possess the power to write a law, but they lack the power to enforce it against the trend or human nature.” — Martin Armstrong Why nature’s laws work: Billions of years of evolution.

State of the EMS industry: needs much more integration

FaceBook’s Safety Check is billed as very helpful, yet it’s only one data point broadcast without real context. Imagine how effective a real peer 2 peer system would be.

Putting the Right Information on Twitter in a Crisis

… the information people find most important tends to be hazard impact information, guidance information, and advisory information – in other words, what people should do or not do in order to protect themselves… Yes, there is misinformation… In smaller localities, one of the problems we hear from emergency managers is that scanning social media during crisis events is like drinking from a fire hose.

There are solutions — but people may not like them. One is sending out a sequence of messages, not just one. Some people don’t like getting a series of messages. We’re also investigating the effectiveness of adding a graphic or image attached to a tweet that might give more information. The third option is attaching a link, but we’ve found that when there’s a link included in a Twitter message, it decreases the likelihood that people will pass it on.

Those are very basic “solutions”! There is no effective communication system in place.

“Volunteers always show up after disaster.” And how does one know what skills they bring? How trustworthy are they? What EMS resources are required to manage them?

“…volunteers who are doing mapping or coding, they need to be really cautious about their mental health.” Also, Emergency responders face an increasing number of calls involving people with behavioral and mental health issues. This whole aftermath area is largely undressed at all.

Once a fully integrated communication and allocation system like Castpoints is available, people can be much more effective and have better piece of mind.

Standard AI still struggles with how to value things… (updated Dec 2015)

New report: “The value learning problem” A superintelligent machine would not automatically act as intended: it will act as programmed, but the fit between human intentions and formal specification could be poor.

I don’t understand? A super intelligence will of course not act as programed, nor as intended because to be “super intelligent“ it will have emergent properties.

Plus “… instrumental incentives to manipulate or deceive its operators, and the system should not resist operator correction or shut- down.” Don’t act like any well adjusted 2 year old? If we really want intelligence running around, we are going to have to learn to let go of control.

Humans can barely value what’s in their scope. Intelligence can only value what’s in their scope because they are not “over there” and really can only follow best practices which might or might not work, and likely won’t work with outliers. We simply can’t take action “for the good of all humanity”, because we don’t know what’s good for everyone. We like to think we do, but we don’t. People used to think binding women’s feet was a good idea. Additionally, even if another takes our advice, only they experience the consequences of their actions: The feedback loop is broken: bureaucracy. This seems to be a persistent issue with AI. It is mathematically unsolvable: a local scope cannot know what’s best for a non local scope (without invoking omniscience. In practical terms, this is why projection of power is so expensive, why empires always fail, and why nature does not have empires.

There is a simple fix, but it requires scary thinking. Evolution obviously has intelligence: It made everything we are and experience. So just copy it. Like any other complex adaptive system it has a few simple initial conditions. https://www.castpoints.com/

If done correctly, we don’t get Skynet, we get another subset of evolution evolving.

Humans don’t understand intelligence. We, and computers, are not that intelligent. We mostly express evolution’s intelligence. That’s why people want to get into “flow” states.

Related: Real AI does not need a goal. Valuable stuff simply emerges from participation.

Update to add: Scientists make a big deal about observation and that nothing exists without it. “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound when it hits the ground?” What about the tree / plants, snail feeling the sound vibrations? I prefer, “Observation doesn’t exist except in relationship.” And since everything is in a relationship with pretty much everything else, by gravity if nothing else, the observed and observer are always present. Then it’s a matter of context, and who has the higher energy.

Update November 2015
A whole AI paper that tries to route around possible issues like a “an expected utility maximizer tasked with winning money on the stock market, which has no regard for whether it accidentally causes a market crash.” This basically can’t happen in CP because if you break your own market, that does not necessarily help you in multiple ways.

  1. Nobody wants to transact with you because you crashed the market! You constrain your future options, which is the only way to make your resources effective. Hoarding is not effective.
  2. Many nodes are also looking to profit from the market going down. They are already short. As they buy back shares, that supports the market.

…alternative to expected utility maximization for powerful AI systems, which we call expected utility quantilization. This could allow the construction of AI systems that do not necessarily fall into strange and unanticipated shortcuts and edge cases in pursuit of their goals.

If the AI systems gets messed up in edge cases, its design is not robust, nor antifragile. It should thrive on edge cases because the edge is where things happen!!!

This also highlights that if AI does not have fractal hierarchies, people will never get it right.

[many people] provide compelling arguments that any rational agent with consistent preferences must act as if it is maximizing some utility function…

“Arguments” are no match for understanding.

Lots of things are not “rational” Seriously, the successful stock market people have known this for ages.

Defining W [available actions move toward change in set of possible outcomes] is not straightforward… discussion of alternative decision theories.

The cause of things differs depending on the context. If everything is within a node or nearby, the cause is simple. A caused B. If a bunch of connections to other nodes are involved, emergent properties are now involved and it is unclear, probably unknown what caused B. B just seemingly arrises on it’s own.

So they have most of the initial conditions incorrect. 🙂 Next is an example of a circuit evolving that used 25% of it’s nodes in a poorly understood way to accomplish the circuit’s goal. This is labeled as a problem, when really it’s likely those 25% are in a different fractal.

Next example:

…a machine that, when told to make humans smile, accomplishes this goal by paralyzing human faces into permanent smiles, rather than by causing us to smile via the usual means.

The whole issue it that the goals are one off’s and too small. The above example would never happen in CP because intelligence is looking to maximize future options within a context. Paralyzing a face does not do that!

Of course, no practical system acting in the real world can actually maximize expected utility, as finding the literally optimal policy is wildly intractable.

Really? Alex Wissner-Gross: A new equation for intelligence did it.

Nevertheless, it is common practice to design systems that approximate expected utility maximization, and insofar as expected utility maximization would be un- satisfactory, such systems would become more and more dangerous as algorithms and approximations improve.

With that design, yes.

If we are to design AI systems which safely pursue simple goals, an alternative may be necessary.

By definition, this can’t be done. Connections produce emergent behavior. That’s what AI is. It will be dangerous until the initial conditions are set up correctly. Then it will be much safer than humans 😉

Update December 2015
I don’t make this stuff up!

Ecological systems are inherently ‘multilayered’. For instance, species interact with one another in different ways and those interactions vary spatiotemporally. However, ecological networks are typically studied as ordinary (i.e., monolayer) networks. – Ecological Multilayer Networks: A New Frontier for Network Ecology

Of course when a topic is first studied it’s fine to over simplify because everyone is learning. “Multilayered” is a step in the right direction, son they will get to fractal based groups that have context (scope).

Update June 2016

New research suggests why the human brain and other biological networks exhibit a hierarchical structure …that the evolution of hierarchy — a simple system of ranking — in biological networks may arise because of the costs associated with network connections.

All this is saying is that things get organized so they can work better.

Update February 2016

Letter

My project “Castpoints” is nature’s operating system of, “evolution”, codified for practical use to manage any and all people and resources. Perhaps you would be interested in parts of it since it redefines AI to ultimately have empathy.

Current AI of “agent” and “connection” lacks 2 crucial initial conditions:
1) A context / environment / fractal. Without this, it’s like the monkeys reared with no mammalian contact. They are not well adjusted because they lack reference points and so can’t easily form meanings.
2) “Agent” implies intelligence, but they really should be called nodes because they can be anything, like a pile of bricks. Also crucially, a tangible node (bricks, a person, etc.) has a scope of about 2 nodes away, while an intangible node (content, light) has a scope of ~infinity.

Current AI can produce Skynet since ultimately this AI has to generate it’s own context and scopes to work with, and that might not value empathy the way we do.

Castpoints AI (evolution) made everything including us, so as long as it’s coded correctly, it “should” 😉 easily value empathy without it being specifically coded in.

The intelligence is more in the connections than the nodes. Speculation:
– More connections basically = more opportunity for emergence. This is what allows evolution to solve problems without first asking the right question, and to solve problems at the same level they were made.
– The connections make patterns. The more structured, antifragile, etc., the more quantity and quality of amplitude and frequency can flow through them. We have intellectually termed this “having value”, being workable, having bandwidth, powerful,  etc. Emotionally we termed these “feeling good”, empathy, etc. Physically, the terms are beautiful, elegant, etc. This is easily visible by putting sand on a plate of glass over a speaker: “Beautiful” music make “pretty” patterns. Acid rock makes “ugly” and course patterns. Thermodynamics wise, beauty is laminar flow while not-beauty is turbulent flow. Of course, both have value, WITHIN the right context. “Ugly”, turbulent flow is often associated with elimination and recycling processes. Crying purges an overloaded system so it can safely reset back to a more comfortable homeostasis.

Related
Patterns: the decentralized “Operating System” and AI

December Snippets, quotes and annotated blurbs

You create the future by thanking the past. – ?

If you are planning for one year, grow rice. If you’re planning for 20 years, grow trees. If you’re planning for centuries, grow people. – Chinese proverb

The task is not so much to see what no one has seen, but to think what nobody has yet thought, about that which everybody sees – Schrödinger

Sometimes it is the people no one imagines anything of who do the things that no one can imagine. – Joan Clarke in The Imitation Game

Summum ius summa inuria. (The more laws, the less justice.) – Marcus Tullius Cicero

Time is the scarcest resource and unless it is managed nothing else can be managed. – Peter F Drucker

The key insight of the most successful CEO’s: A laser like focus on, and an ability to make bold decisions about resource allocation. — The Outsiders: Eight Unconventional CEOs and Their Radically Rational Blueprint for Success, William N. Thorndike

Programmers cannot write code to accomplish something they do not understand. – Martin Armstrong

Ben Bernanke “In order to do anything, I think I would not only have to know everything in advance, everyone would have to know I knew everything in advance.” Unbelievably ignorant. As any first grade science student knows, the economy is a complex adaptive system. You can’t know everything about it and even if you did, by definition, you can’t predict the emergent properties. “The only thing one can forecast intelligently is that the fragile will break.” ~ Taleb

“We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them” – Einstein
[So in order to solve global “problems” like famine and injustice, we must have a method that produces emergence.]

End-user computing Many teenagers spend a huge amount of time on Facebook. How about a way for teens to build their own Facebook apps, where the program lets you traverse your social graph with just a few lines of code? Just as spreadsheets offer SUM(), a social programming tool could give you functions like my_friends() and my_photos().

Consider abstracting things even more. We all want, and offer, stuff. A “request” is the basic building block for interaction. We should be able to manipulate requests so that they make a personalized, collaborative-able story that is interesting to us. “my_friends()” is a node. If we connect to my_photos() the same way nature manages connections, and there are many nodes and connections, we have a global brain.

Let Uber Operate With Less Regulation And Riders Can Make Their Own Choice
Reputation is replacing regulation. Regulation is faulty (essentially a tax that creates monopolies) because regulators don’t have skin in the game, AND minuscule consequences for poor decisions. But to fully bloom, reputation needs individual insurance and a local peer 2 peer conflict resolution system that can make decisions in a weeks, not years. Soon reputation won’t just be “5 stars”. It will include the premium for a class of insurance paid by a specific service provider. Also, a higher insurance coverage can denote responsibility — when claims are peer 2 peer. That levels the playing field between a company with deep pockets and average people.

The Next Phase in Financial Services: What Low-income Americans Tell Us What we all want is a safe and easy way to add value and be paid for it. “…They jerry rig their own social safety nets.” So actually, its hard to start a business due to bureaucracy. And the transaction mediums are all fiat currencies so have the hidden tax of monetary inflation, and tax of political mismanagement. The ideal currency is shares in entities that consistently add value and can offer dividends — which can reduce income volatility. The float is managed by supply and demand.

We want the whole system though. Current conflict resolution is cruel joke. It should be peer 2 peer with “judges” that are actually accountable. Judges should be expert in the topic, and close cases in weeks, not years. In fact everything should be peer 2 peer. A cashier does not need a terminal, just log into their job on their mobile device and ring people up.

This system is not disruptive — its how nature works. What’s disruptive is letting go of the top down centralized control model that scales poorly and keeps billions living on $2.50/day.

“But what about all the laws?”

Hi, “Law” does not scale well. Contracts do. Of course insurance is not yet peer 2 peer — its a very lucrative business, especially when gov’s pass a billion “laws” that sort of make the whole industry a hard to get into monopoly. That unnecessarily increases the cost for everyone else. Competitive pressures are focusing on this area because its become a huge arbitrage opportunity. Instead of hiding behind “laws” these companies could meet the challenge of competition and innovate their way to profit.