Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: The problems of information complexity, attention scarcity, and voter apathy.  (Read 779 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline luckybit


The voter apathy problem in my opinion is the symptom/subset of the attention scarcity problem.

The attention scarcity problem will only get worse as the technological solutions become of a greater complexity.

Complex information becomes much more difficult to process and even if the data were simple it could be so much of it flowing around that no one can organize and process it all into anything useful to make wise decisions.

How do we scale up decision making capabilities along with the level of technological and information complexity in a way which factors in the problem of attention scarcity?

I think autonomous agents could be one mechanism we could use to do this. Algorithms are perhaps our only means of processing vast amounts of information of increasing complexity. How can we scale up our information processing capabilities within the Bitshares platform?

Delegating the decision making responsibilities to experts might delay a catastrophe but it is not a long term solution as it is top heavy and promotes reliance/dependency on others. These others who followers depend on could become the de-facto government of experts. Providing an incentive for people to vote will make people direct their attention from other problems but is a costly solution.  If we put a focus on solving the problem of attention scarcity using automation/algorithms then we might be able to solve the problem of voter apathy in the most cost effective way.

Reference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_economy
http://www.theequitykicker.com/2009/07/24/information-abundance-creates-attention-scarcity/
http://subprint.com/blog/data-is-the-most-valuable-commodity-on-earth

« Last Edit: November 23, 2014, 09:15:59 PM by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline lord_potatoe

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Sounds like you are just rediscovering the exact problems with the existing legal and financial system.

Offline luckybit

Sounds like you are just rediscovering the exact problems with the existing legal and financial system.

The problem of attention scarcity is one of the central reasons why people don't take the time to learn about every possible option. There are simply too many options, too many tough choices, too many potential deals for people to choose from. This problem of attention scarcity might contribute to behaviors like brand loyalty where people irrationally choose products based on brand alone instead of choosing products which have the attributes they want at the best price (the best deals).

Voting isn't very different from shopping. If autonomous agents can be bots which shop for products and services then autonomous agents can shop for delegates. So the problem of voter apathy isn't really much of a problem that can't be solved using the computational resources we have but if we insist on relying on people to use their brains limited resources then we will never be able to solve it. It's the same situation as the math teacher who says "no calculators" forcing everyone to do it in their heads or on paper.

You're correct in that the Bitshares community is essentially setting itself up to duplicate many of the same problems that exist with the existing system but there isn't a good reason for the Bitshares community to go this route except that it's easier. It's easier to rely on trusted experts and for now I'm not too critical of the developers on this because we aren't even at 1.0 yet and at this scale these sorts of solutions could work. My concerns come into play when things scale up with a market cap in the billions, with perhaps tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years, from there if you increase the amount of delegates then you might slow the DAC down but if you expect 100,000 new people to have to trust Bitshares leadership then eventually you end up with a very similar system to the flawed political processes we have today.

Just the addition of autonomous agents would be a dramatic improvement over the voting systems we have today. The reason is you would remove the problem of attention scarcity from voting so that the rule makers cannot exploit the fact that no one is paying attention. How did Obamacare pass? Obamascare exploited attention scarcity because no one was able to read the new bill which was hundreds of pages long and passed in the middle of the night at 1:00 AM. Additionally around 30,000 pages of regulations were added to it after it passed.

Reference
http://www.redstate.com/diary/California_Yankee/2009/12/19/dems-schedule-unpopular-obamacare-vote-for-dead-of-night/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/how-many-pages-of-regulations-for-obamacare/2013/05/14/61eec914-bcf9-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_blog.html

http://whyseemath.com/pdf172/sup_dem_linear_model.pdf

« Last Edit: November 24, 2014, 05:06:14 PM by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
Very good point.

I think, for all its flaws at the moment Bitcoin has an advantage over BitShares because they have separate controllers who are well incentivised to manage the security of the system on behalf of the users  & are locked in by Bitcoin's supply curve. (So a majority miner can't change the rules without destroying Bitcoins value.) The problem POW  has is how to decentralise security & charge much less for the service.

With 101 delegates,  BitShares seemed to solve that, except BitShares expects users to manage a complex system, which hasn't really worked yet in practice (voter apathy), especially without any direct incentives to vote vs. not voting.

Once BitAssets go mainstream there will be separation just like in Bitcoin of mainstream apathetic users who will mostly be BitAsset holders vs. controllers (BTS holders) but without being locked into a supply curve like BitCoin, BTS may be diluted to the benefit of the most powerful & active stakeholders.

Your suggestion is a potential good solution as well as perhaps incentives to vote to maximise participation, cold storage voting options (next update :) ) as well as, most importantly in my view, either mainstream marketed no dilution or a fixed forever supply curve. That way just like Bitcoin, even if there were large stake holder blocks, they couldn't change the dilution in favour of themselves without destroying BitShares' value.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2014, 05:38:53 PM by Empirical1.1 »

Offline Thom

As a high level concept of employing computational tools in the form of BOTs / agents I'm with you 100%. I think your ideas on this subject aren't getting much traction b/c they're seen as long term objectives and there are other more pressing immediate problems to overcome.

I partially agree with that perspective, but unless we look forward and anticipate upcoming problems this community will simply be reactive and not innovative.

I believe once again you've hit the nail on the head. We live in an information age and what will increasingly provide more value as time goes on is an individual's ability to process wider swaths of info and distill it into something useful s/he can act on.

Bytemaster and the team he has assembled have demonstrated their ability to innovate and look into the future. However, and I could be wrong, but I don't get the impression he or the team think about voting and decision making in the broader scope of information processing. Yet it is central to so many aspects of modern everyday life.

I can see you've also done a fair amount of research about intelligent agents. How much has focused on a means of representing the problems intelligent agents are built to resolve? Can a relatively simple task like shopping be comprehensively and practically handled by intelligent agents? Take the most complex "thing" one might shop for and the most picky shopper and see how long it might take to devise an interview script to capture all of the buyer's preferences, then do the same for the range of decisions and tradeoffs the BOT must make. It's a daunting task!

Can any problem of information processing be broken down in a hierarchy of decisions that can be automated? "Any" is probably way too unbounded and impractical, but where is the balance point, a reasonable set of objectives to shoot for?

I ask this having invested the time to watch the entire video series you posted about intelligent agents, learning that research in that field has been going on in academia and industry for many decades, and I wonder if it has trickled down to to provide useful tools and software for practical use. I worked for over 5 years at the nation's first research consortium formed to address the Japanese technological threat of the 80's. There was a lot of great talent and research at that company, much of the research was directly related to AI. What is the state of the art today? What examples exist of intelligent agents employed to distill and process complex information?

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech Team Witness Proposal: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,13837.msg243656.html#msg243656

Offline Geneko

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
    • View Profile
Something come to my mind while I was reading this very interesting topic. I am not tech savvy so please take this in consideration while riding further.

There is a tool IMB Watson http://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/us/en/ibmwatson/ that process natural language from huge amount of uploaded documents in I way humans do and has ability for hypotheses generation and dynamic learning. Their business model include leasing of server and their search engine.

I don’t know anything about cost effectiveness of such a model but some dev.delegate could build some cognitive app that could provide targeted searches from different forums, social networks and many other related sources or, community as a whole could establish some predefined goals and make app or built in wallet option that could provide suggestion or be set for automatic voting mode.

I suppose this could looks silly and potentially very dangerous but leaving voting like this also looks silly and is potentially very dangerous considering voting apathy. We need something asp that could worked for some time until further development come up with some more decentralized solution and some kind of open source platform.

Anyway this tread gives me hope something could be done about it after all  :)   

Offline luckybit

As a high level concept of employing computational tools in the form of BOTs / agents I'm with you 100%. I think your ideas on this subject aren't getting much traction b/c they're seen as long term objectives and there are other more pressing immediate problems to overcome.

I partially agree with that perspective, but unless we look forward and anticipate upcoming problems this community will simply be reactive and not innovative.

I believe once again you've hit the nail on the head. We live in an information age and what will increasingly provide more value as time goes on is an individual's ability to process wider swaths of info and distill it into something useful s/he can act on.

Bytemaster and the team he has assembled have demonstrated their ability to innovate and look into the future. However, and I could be wrong, but I don't get the impression he or the team think about voting and decision making in the broader scope of information processing. Yet it is central to so many aspects of modern everyday life.
Bytemaster seems focused on achieving lift-off for Bitshares 1.0. In that respect he has surpassed expectations. It's going to take a lot of developers but with dilution we may in fact be able to hire at least one full time developer to build the autonomous agent library for Bitshares toolkit. To make a case to the community we would have to make it in terms of economical benefit and social utility gained from freeing scarce attention up via bots. The less scarce attention is as a resource for our community the better because there are a lot of really smart people in the community.

I can see you've also done a fair amount of research about intelligent agents. How much has focused on a means of representing the problems intelligent agents are built to resolve? Can a relatively simple task like shopping be comprehensively and practically handled by intelligent agents? Take the most complex "thing" one might shop for and the most picky shopper and see how long it might take to devise an interview script to capture all of the buyer's preferences, then do the same for the range of decisions and tradeoffs the BOT must make. It's a daunting task!

All of this is a daunting task. It's about selecting the delegates most qualified to implement the vision. We shouldn't expect Bytemaster to be a master of artificial intelligence. We should find a master in autonomous agent AI and hire them as a delegate to implement this once we determine that we have enough of a foundation to do so. Considering the power of bots in terms of the amount of money we could make from trading bots I don't see why it wouldn't be in our economic self interest to build the infrastructure because we don't have the attention to make consistently good trades either.


Can any problem of information processing be broken down in a hierarchy of decisions that can be automated? "Any" is probably way too unbounded and impractical, but where is the balance point, a reasonable set of objectives to shoot for?
If it can be quantified then yes. If it's something very qualitative then that is much more difficult. Only a human can decide if the Pizza from a certain fast food delivery tasted good because qualia is a specific trait that AI doesn't have. Since many preferences are subjective you cannot assume every decision on a shopping list will be something an autonomous agent can predict but the autonomous agent if it learns enough about your eating habits will be able to figure out the frequency that you eat certain things to quantify that you might not mind if those more familiar foods are used in substitutions in the situation where the preferences of your main priority aren't met for example.

Conditional preference networks can learn over time and become more accurate. So I would say while some of the time you might get really creepy inaccurate suggestions there will be other times where it will be so accurate that it is spooky. If you want to know where we are at then just look at how effective Google, Amazon and other AI suggestions/recommendations are. It's not exactly intelligent but it still probably knows more about you than you know about yourself due to the sheer amount of data and length of time it has been collecting it.

As far as objectives to shoot for the first thing we should probably do is bring some AI experts into the discussion. I'm not an AI expert even though I may research the topic as a hobbyist. Find and recruit people in the crypto community who have backgrounds working on AI/autonomous agents and they can help refine the design of a framework or library.


I ask this having invested the time to watch the entire video series you posted about intelligent agents, learning that research in that field has been going on in academia and industry for many decades, and I wonder if it has trickled down to to provide useful tools and software for practical use. I worked for over 5 years at the nation's first research consortium formed to address the Japanese technological threat of the 80's. There was a lot of great talent and research at that company, much of the research was directly related to AI. What is the state of the art today? What examples exist of intelligent agents employed to distill and process complex information?


Here are some software libraries which may show practical implementations. It's hard for me to say for sure because right now Bitshares does not have Turing complete scripting. I think it might make the most sense to simply hire an expert in AI/autonomous systems as a delegate to build a library along with an API from scratch into the Bitshares toolkit itself.

The code in Python is easy enough to read:
https://pypi.python.org/pypi/spyse

Jason (Java implementation):
http://jason.sourceforge.net/wp/

Multi-agent system modeling software:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_agent-based_modeling_software

One expert in AI seems to be Stephen Reed who is working on AI coin. You might want to get in contact with him to discuss these sorts of ideas as he might be able to offer better advice on how to develop it but it seems to me that Java is the preferred language.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=584719.0
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y-fZSZ7fL7LCKOvAW2niLtuFe7U5QrQ9XUVp3blOlu0/edit
https://github.com/TexaiCognitiveArchitecture
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ycTL9BTaE8
« Last Edit: November 25, 2014, 12:07:43 AM by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Thom

What an excellent and thorough reply. I'll do some digging on AI coin and Stephen Reed.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech Team Witness Proposal: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,13837.msg243656.html#msg243656

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
Did I understand you right there? You would want to replace the voting by shareholders with the voting by autonomous agents?

I would have two concerns then:

1) Either such voting decisions are very complex and need human assessment: Is the 100% pay justified? Should webdeveloper 1 or webdev 2 be voted in?

2) Or if decisions are rather easy (like for plain node delegates, no worker/paid delegates) and depend on metrics like reliability, trust (which again is harder to verify) etc. then an attacker could prepare lots of delegates that are modeled after the criteria of the autonomous voting agent.

Offline luckybit

Did I understand you right there? You would want to replace the voting by shareholders with the voting by autonomous agents?
You don't have me right. I want autonomous agents to direct the voting power of shareholders in accordance to their preferences. Voting agents would be similar to trading bots and would need to exist for similar reasons. Just as politicians are agents acting as political robots the autonomous agents are software agents acting as delegates. In situations where software agents can do the job then we should not burden human beings by making them act as political robots because honestly human beings aren't very good at being robots.

I would have two concerns then:

1) Either such voting decisions are very complex and need human assessment: Is the 100% pay justified? Should webdeveloper 1 or webdev 2 be voted in?
In this case the voting agent could simply send a text message to your phone, a message to your instant messaging app, an email, or some other alert which gets your attention. The point is that if a vote doesn't have to rise to your attention then it should be handled by your voting agent.

In the case where it's votes which you think need human assessment a lot of the time it doesn't. For example when people shop for food do you think they shop based on brand loyalty, based on the marketing, or do you think they read and analyze every ingredient on the ingredient list? Most humans due to attention scarcity do not know what they eat. Additionally humans don't really know what the laws are either because no one has the time to read thousand page bills passed in the middle of the night.

2) Or if decisions are rather easy (like for plain node delegates, no worker/paid delegates) and depend on metrics like reliability, trust (which again is harder to verify) etc. then an attacker could prepare lots of delegates that are modeled after the criteria of the autonomous voting agent.
The criteria of your voting agents would not have to be public. If it is public it does not mean attackers could model after it if the criteria takes reputation into account and or requires recommendation from members of your web of trust.

I think the purpose of autonomous agents is the fact that due to the sheer magnitude of the information which will eventually be available that the decision making becomes more difficult for humans as more information (and greater amount of choices) are offered. So for example if you take shopping again and you consider the fact that almost no human being has expertise in chemistry, nutrition and complete control of their attention to ignore all the advertisements, branding, then you'll realize most humans only show the illusion of free choice when in reality due to attention scarcity their choices are subconsciously dictated often by subliminal advertisements influencing their subconscious.

What I mean is that most people shop on gut feelings, ads, trends, and a lot of that is unconscious or subconscious decisions which are influenced by marketing. This means the typical shopper may not get very good deals or make very good choices because they simply cannot process all the information about every option available. If it's food almost no one is going to research every ingredient in every product and even if they tried they probably won't track the calories, the price, the amount of food compared to previous years, all which continuously changes to keep consumers off balance.

In the case of Bitshares then someone might offer a proposal and if Bitshares were to scale there could be thousands of people offering proposals every week. After a certain point no one is going to have the time to read through every proposal and also if we just rely on our experts then all voting power centralizes around these people who could someday collude. Autonomous agents would keep the power decentralized, allow the decision making capability to scale, and if it is a decision which no autonomous agent can make for you then these decisions would rise to your attention but if it's a decision you can train or teach an autonomous agent to make then you'd be able to save your attention for the more difficult decisions you have to make.

« Last Edit: November 25, 2014, 06:03:43 PM by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Thom

Quote
Just as politicians are agents acting as political robots......because honestly human beings aren't very good at being robots.

Not a very good analogy, as in practice politicians don't act like very good agents at all, i.e. according to voters. But the analogy does communicate the concept if one assumes politicians do reflect the will of the voters.

It also illustrates my point about "skynet" from an earlier conversation and the robots running amok or making decisions "on their own" or more precisely the rules that program the agents fail for whatever reason to represent their master's will.

There are several reasons the agents might not act in the best interests of their masters: corrupted code, mistakes in the code due to poor testing or poor understanding on the part of the programer / master. I'm sure there are other possibilities (hardware  / memory failure?). Such problems are not show stoppers for implementation, rather it just increases the cost to engineer the system.

(missing bracket screwed up the quoting)
« Last Edit: November 26, 2014, 11:10:22 PM by Thom »
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech Team Witness Proposal: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,13837.msg243656.html#msg243656

Offline luckybit

Quote
Just as politicians are agents acting as political robots......because honestly human beings aren't very good at being robots.

Not a very good analogy, as in practice politicians don't act like very good agents at all, i.e. according to voters. But the analogy does communicate the concept if one assumes politicians do reflect the will of the voters.

It also illustrates my point about "skynet" from an earlier conversation and the robots running amok or making decisions "on their own" or more precisely the rules that program the agents fail for whatever reason to represent their master's will.

Skynet is not likely to emerge from autonomous software agents. Agents only make your decisions on your behalf because you don't have the attention span to make them yourself. So the market basically would more accurately reflect the supply and demands of the participants. What is wrong with that?

There are several reasons the agents might not act in the best interests of their masters: corrupted code, mistakes in the code due to poor testing or poor understanding on the part of the programer / master.

If you trust the code of the Bitshares toolkit with your money you're telling me you wouldn't trust code which gives you even greater control over Bitshares? I don't understand this particular fear when you're already trusting an autonomous software agent "Bitshares" to handle certain market operations. If there is a bug in the code you could lose your life savings or there could be a black swan event market failure.

If there is a bug in the voting agent code then the wrong delegates might get elected but you could manually fire them once you see that. I don't see how this is a particularly big risk.

I'm sure there are other possibilities (hardware  / memory failure?). Such problems are not show stoppers for implementation, rather it just increases the cost to engineer the system.

All of these possibilities apply to Bitcoin, Ethereum, Bitshares and all of the DACs. If we are the risk takers in society then we are the risk takers but that is also putting us in line to be rewarded.

Autonomous agents have the same inherent risks that DACs do. DACs as described by Stan are designed to behave very similar to autonomous agents. I take things a logical step forward which is to say that if you can create a DAC with humans and autonomous agents in the center then you can also create a DAC with autonomous agents on the edges so that the market expands to the outer edges.

Bitshares for example has market maker bots already. So in this instance you already have very rudimentary autonomous agents being used for market making. Why not develop a framework so that this capability can apply to more than just internal trading? Why not use that framework so that shareholders can automate their voting in the same way that trading is automated?

If you're afraid of Skynet then you should do everything manually. Good luck. 

Reference
Primavera De Filippi on Ethereum: Freenet or Skynet?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slhuidzccpI
Skynet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skynet_%28Terminator%29
« Last Edit: November 26, 2014, 05:26:30 PM by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Thom

I'm just pointing out some of the considerations. By skynet I meant a situation where the AAs didn't carry out their owner's wishes. It all depends on the level of decision making you turn over to the bots. Long before any skynet type of problems manifest we would be learning how to make them more robust and fault tolerant.

In the near term as you say the ramifications of an aberrant bot are easy to spot and correct.

As much as I'm in complete agreement with you that the bitshares ecosystem would benefit tremendouslyFrom the use of bots, I like you am simply thinking far into the future and what the ramifications of employing bots widely and for important decisions would mean. When you introduced the idea of politicians as bots, it set me to thinking about aberrant behavior.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech Team Witness Proposal: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,13837.msg243656.html#msg243656

Offline luckybit

I'm just pointing out some of the considerations. By skynet I meant a situation where the AAs didn't carry out their owner's wishes. It all depends on the level of decision making you turn over to the bots. Long before any skynet type of problems manifest we would be learning how to make them more robust and fault tolerant.
If I use the word "smart contract" instead of autonomous agent does it change how you think about it? If you can trust a smart contract then you can trust an autonomous agent but if you find that smart contracts aren't something you can trust then you've also found that autonomous agents aren't something you can trust.

Both are just scripts. If there are no bugs in the code then they do exactly as they are told to do. They can make decisions based on conditions but it's all deterministic so they cannot have any surprise capabilities. They cannot become self aware as that is just in the movies and not reflecting of the current state of AI.

In the near term as you say the ramifications of an aberrant bot are easy to spot and correct.

As much as I'm in complete agreement with you that the bitshares ecosystem would benefit tremendously. From the use of bots, I like you am simply thinking far into the future and what the ramifications of employing bots widely and for important decisions would mean. When you introduced the idea of politicians as bots, it set me to thinking about aberrant behavior.

If we end up in a situation where we have artificial general intelligence level AI then would you prefer this to be decentralized, open source, fully transparent, or would you rather it be centralized, closed source, done in secret, state controlled? These are the sort of issues at stake because technology is going to progress whether we the people benefit from them or not.

Either we are going to have a world where Google or whichever corporation or country that develops AGI first rules the entire world or we are going to let it emerge in a decentralized fashion. To understand more about the risks we could face with AGI read Hugo de Garis: The Artilect War.

Reference
Hugo de Garis: The Artilect War
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-cOipzmFhg
Hugo de Garis interview - part 4 Future War and the Global State - 2010-10-09 008-1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO8FbEUXYuo
Hugo de Garis interview - part 5 Contrasting Ideologies & Politics - 2010-10-09 009-1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVjSM3ZnnbY
Hugo de Garis interview - part 6 further on Ideologies - 2010-10-09 010-1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW0F6mo4Uek
Hugo de Garis interview - part 7 Terran vs Cyborg/Cosmist Ideology - 2010-10-09 011
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anTAyRdNpOo
Hugo de Garis interview - part 8 - 2010-10-09 012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvsTmV8ldLg
Hugo de Garis interview - part 9 - 2010-10-09 013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-HVJ8IZDUw
Artificial Intelligence - We Had Better Start Thinking About it Now! - Hugo de Garis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4ubQS_OTP8
« Last Edit: November 27, 2014, 12:52:46 AM by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Thom

In general I didn't find myself drawn to these videos. I listened to the first one and bits and pieces from others, but not real impressed.

One thing I think he is right about, is that if / when AI bots / artilecs become very powerful (part of that equation is in what realms they are applied), that man vs. artilect will not be the first conflict it will be between men; those who oppose the use of artilecs and those that advocate for their use.

If their current level of application as seen in amazon, advertising and the like is the extent of their sophistication it will be a very long time before the power of artilects become sufficient to trigger the conflicts deGaris predicts.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech Team Witness Proposal: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,13837.msg243656.html#msg243656

 

Google+