From Economists View:That would be 250 years that economists have complained that government does not follow the proper priors as indicated in paragraph one of economic research. I have the solution, naturally, Fiscal Bot, an evolution of Banker Bot.
The complaint is: "fiscal policy is severely hampered by the political process".
We could put the bots in charge, and fire the economists. Fiscal bots would read the priors from every research report and maintain a Theory of Priors. Then they would allocate fiscal budgets so as to reduce the volatility of priors. We could bet on priors, saving or borrowing units of them. Prior currency would be used as a tax discount. Priors would become unhedgeable.
Seriously, if you dump the voter then plain and simple the bots, not economists, are the better replacement. Simon will never figure this out, hedging his priors is his entire economic theory.
What is the Theory of Priors?
It is, simply, the optimum connected network distributing the flow of economist's priors. It is optimized over the network of prior readers, naturally. But won;t this be hedged with Bot clicker machines. Won't economist just publish a bit of prior then hire the bot clicker? Sure, but the change in clicker statistics will cause the lend and savings rates on Prior Currency to change, and human readers will be put right back in charge as they bet the variance. In fact, the Fiscal Bot would be the most popular bot on the web, surpassing even the Banker Bot. It is actually a quite sound idea, and the more I apply the TOE to these problems, the more I see human fallibility driving the singularity.
I have a hard time understanding how we are going to avoid the the bots since they are clearly objective theorem provers, and nothing else.
No comments:
Post a Comment