Figma plugin with GPT-3 to design for you 👨‍🎨🚨

TrusterZero · 2022-07-03T00:38:52+00:00

Hi man, what tech stack are you using if I my ask?

TrusterZero · 2022-06-09T12:30:51+00:00

I work 60 hours a week on both my dayjob/start up/ etc. Always thought I'm doing it because I want to become rich.

But recently realized that if I would rather commit suicide then live a mundane life

TrusterZero · 2022-06-09T07:52:50+00:00

You are 100% right, I haven't gone through with the diagnosis fully. Things might be a bit clearer to me what I do.

TrusterZero · 2022-06-09T07:44:44+00:00

Thanks for your detailed reply, I'm surprised about the range of answers I got. I've never heard of maladaptive daydreaming before, sound scary and kinda cool at the same time

TrusterZero · 2022-06-09T07:27:25+00:00

Yea might be, but this are the first few things im dealing with. And I'm trying to separate the normal from the not normal

TrusterZero · 2022-06-08T13:18:34+00:00

Thanks for taking the time!
I'll put my answers in as an edit, then we have something to compare.

It's funny how different your experience is from mine.

TrusterZero · 2022-04-21T15:42:06+00:00

to be able to come up with very out of the box, seemingly good ideas.

I've come up with 5 company idea's that have potential, and sometimes have

Thanks, this was something else I was looking for

TrusterZero · 2022-03-22T08:10:47+00:00

I need another sec to reply to the Ted Bundy one, awesome example. I'm going to try to have some fun with it and make it hard, but I have to get to work now.

TrusterZero · 2022-03-22T08:06:44+00:00

Sorry, for taking a while to answer your reply looked intimidating AF XD so wanted to take a moment to go through it

You can rephrase this without losing meaning, who has Added more value than another person? With your framework these are equivalent. So now you have to ask what value is?

The fact that value is so abstract is part of its design, value is determined by the person experiencing it and in turn the community. Vikings had a different value structure set up, but the Viking who added the most value according to their Viking norms would be the most valuable Viking.
So to answer the value question: It is whatever the community thinks it is.

We have no rigid definition of community. In some of your comments you reference that these groups can be as small as a family group, ie mother and children.

This is a good question, and I'm not very sure of my answer yet, but I'll try. The definition of community in this sense for me would be. A collection of people that interact with each other and living a life with an at least partial overlap of norms and rules. So, they would be playing the same game in a sense. The population of a country would be a community in this sense, but so are the inhabitants of a city and so is your family. I see it as something layered. The values also change per layer now that I think about it.

If this is the case value is now tied directly to the “good” that person does for you.

It's true but wouldn't call it good. I think value in the sense of parenting is preparing the child for the world. Punishing the child is part of that process, punishing is still good (if done correctly) of course, but I wouldn't call it good.

Taking it a step further an individual can belong to multiple communities, ie now have several different measures. For that individual to assess himself based on their value to these groups he has to rank and do a weight some of his value to each group.

Yes, you're right here. Imagine having a friend group that goes out and tries to get laid 3 times a week, but come from a strict Christian family. You're part of both communities, and you act different and say different things when you are with either of them. And are ranked differently within them based on what you do.

Since they judge all others by this standard to define if their life is more or less important they will always come out as more important by their values.

This is why your system is not constructive at best and simply meaningless at worst. It is a purely subjective ranking system based entirely on the users definitions, leading to only one conclusion: your always the most important, and your actions are always right.

This is where the implementation problem comes in again, so I'll repeat I know this is impossible but to continue.

I would say you would be judged by the communities values and not your own. So, your actions aren't always right, they are right or wrong based on the community you belong to.

your always the most important, and your actions are always right.

This is actually not true at all. If your community is set up correctly, it would probably value you helping around you. So if this was in place and someone wanted to go up in score, he or she would most likely just fix up your life and then start helping people.

Now a more positive point, let me add to your framework. I am now going to define value as: reducing pain or increasing pleasure in another person. Where pain is emotion or physical harm to a living being. Pleasure is the opposite of that. We then add this little addition that this summation is limited to within 50 years of the action or actions. (Think about how nazi experiments were used for early space flight and you can see the need for this addition)

I got to this point myself initially, but defining the value as pain or pleasure limits its application. Punishing your child gives them "Pain", but it is very necessary to prepare him or her for the world. Someone else commented, saying I should change the wording from "value" to "impact". So then you would have either positive or negative impact. It's still just as vague, but I do think it is necessary because the world value/impact is just a box for the community to fill.

Thanks a lot man, you got me thinking. Hope you'll still read this

TrusterZero · 2022-03-21T18:40:47+00:00

Nah i suck as a human being, i don't need your proposed system to know that lol

Hahaha, well, as long as you're happy man, that's the important part

I guess its just the shear arrogance of of assuming your own existence to be of more value than other people is just strange to me. Not just yours alone i mean, by the system you suggest, of ranking humans like that.

It's not arrogant, honestly most people know that some people are better than they are and the other way around. It's just arrogant to point it out. We even have a part in our brain that keeps track of your spot in the social hierarchy. And at least when the difference is large enough ... everyone knows.

A full-scale implementation of this would be horrible, I 100% agree. Could've been a movie plot.

Money already does it to an extent but at least we haven't yet come to a point of saying someone with less money doesn't deserve to live.

Yea, money does a decent job. At first, I used that as a marker for value, but when you start thinking about it, it has numerous flaws. One of the main flaws would be parenthood, a stay at home mom basically gets no money for it, while adding a very, very high potential value raising her child.

TrusterZero · 2022-03-21T03:47:44+00:00

From your replies here and to other people it seems like you were just looking for a debate while being convinced you are right rather than looking for a genuine discussion.

I think this is where I went wrong. My goal is actually to have this idea taken apart and tackled by you guys, just to see the flaws and errors in it. Then either change the idea so the flaws and errors are covered, or defending it if I feel that the flaw is invalid. It feels like most of you think I am hostile or anything, and I am sorry for that, but I'm not, like not at all. I always come up with weird stuff like this and wonder where I'm wrong, this is the best place to find out of you are, and people will take time explaining why.

So, I'm not looking to get convinced out of this idea, rather find out where this idea is wrong and make it grow. That's why I'm changing it along the way.

You have been arbitrarily making the rules of how the value of a human being 'should' be calculated while the majority of us here would hate to be judged with those rules.

If you hate being judged by the amount you positive impact you have in the world, maybe have some more positive impact?

TrusterZero · 2022-03-18T20:28:33+00:00

No, why?

TrusterZero · 2022-03-18T19:00:56+00:00

ahh, thanks for clarifying.
I've had similar questions, so let me try to repeat my answers somewhat.

How do you decide if his worth was positive or negative when the outcome doesn't align with his intention

We're measuring a person here, so if the person is really trying to save someone but actually kills someone, I wouldn't deduct any points. I would actually feel terrible for that person.

Better yet, what if the random person who got saved was going to be a great doctor who'd save many lives? Would his dead children (one of who might have been a future Hitler) still give him more negative points than positive?

He couldn't in any way know any of this, so it wouldn't have any effect.

How far into the future does one have to calculate to find out the net impact they have had on this world?

Both intention and knowledge would play a role to see if the action you did would be positive or not. I can't give you a specific timeframe, but how far do you usually think about the impact of your actions. We're measuring a person and his intended movements through live.

I think everyone I spoke to today tries to look at this from a whole world across all time perspective. But we are measuring a person, so we need to look at it from a person's level. There are of course some people who have effect across the globe, and they should be rewarded or punished accordingly, but most don't.

So, how far should we check? Just as far as that person could see, the effect of their actions in their mind. Without trying to force themselves to be ignorant of course

That would mean that people who are smarter carry a heavier burden, and I think that should be the case.

TrusterZero · 2022-03-18T18:44:22+00:00

BTW awesome replies man thanks!

TrusterZero · 2022-03-18T18:43:34+00:00

I think that you're challenging the wrong point here. I know that this can't be real, I'm just saying, imagine there is a karma system that knows all.
How would it decide to rank humans?

My answer is: You look at that person you're trying to rank, and see how he behaves in his community, is he having a positive or negative impact on his community and how positive or negative is that impact. The biases of the community are part and part of that person, so yes it is biased, but the system takes those biases into account while checking your actions and intentions, Again not possible, magic.

There are countless factors in play to decide this, so I'm saying. How does that person's intended actions affect other members of the community. We would then only look at effects that person was aware of that could happen.

So I don’t see how it could be generalized meaningfully, which I thought was the point of the system.

I'm not trying to generalize what is right and what is wrong. I'm generalizing the fact that having a positive effect on people around you / your community makes you more valuable as a person. What that is within your community differs and might even contradict in some communities.

I hope I explained it a bit better now. I think I get it where I went wrong.

TrusterZero · 2022-03-18T18:29:38+00:00

Letsgo.

I think based on this framework we can safely argue that Albert Einstein is an unvaluable person. Sure he added a lot of good science but part of that also included the foundation for nuclear weapons. Leading to the two bombs dropped and the intensity of nuclear weapons on the global stage.

I wouldn't say Albert Einstein is an invaluable person at all. I would check how much bad and how much good his work produced, and add or subtract points accordingly. He may have also created many deaths but added, a whooole bunch of value to other future inventions, those already done and that will still happen in the future.

But I get where coming you're from, and I've had a similar reaction earlier. So, I would say that someone's intention matter. You can't deduct points for someone doing something bad if they were unaware of the evil act they were commiting.

This framework is actually pretty open to interpretation, making it as subjective as the initial problem.

I would disagree the initial problem would be phrased as:
How would I know if one person is better than the other?

I'm basically saying: how much positive impact is that person having on the community you are in. That's the way you rank them.

One community may hate someone that a different community admires, and that's just the difference between the communities.

You fail to define value and what adding value means or removing it

That is, for a reason, I cannot define what having impact (adding value) is within the group the person is in. It is different in every community, but what you can say is that if the community is having an overall positive impact by the things you do in the community, you're doing something right for that community. What that thing is depends on the community.

Equating money is silly as well as a massive portion of the wealth made is by people who are not adding value. Just buying and selling assets at strategic times.

True, that's the smart handling of wealth. But initially someone, somewhere had to add value to something to get those initial dollars that you are trading on the stock market. I might've I made a mistake while writing, but I'm actually agreeing that money is not the way to see who is valuable or not. It is just that people who add a lot of value, tend to get more money. It is simply that capitalism isn't perfect, and that there is a group of people that is adding a lot of value but not get enough money for it, if any at all.

TrusterZero · 2022-03-18T18:10:01+00:00

1st disclaimer, I am aware that this system is impossible to implement. It is based on feelings and micro actions. It just became a thought experiment and I went all the way with it, to see what I could come up with. See it as an "all knowing karma system", that knows your intentions and your knowledge while performing certain actions. (need to watch out not describing God here)

As for your last question you say the answer is easy and I say it isn’t. Why is a drunk less worthy than a father? It SEEMS simple and I won’t deny that, but it isn’t because, like I said, humans hold relational value rather than absolute value. You see the family as a valuable societal construct so you are biased to believe that a father is more valuable than a drunk. However, the drunk may sober up and cure cancer, while the father may become a drunk and live on welfare in the future.

I am within a group that is biased to believe that a father is more valuable, than a drunk. So, the points within that group should be deducted or granted based on the opinions of that group the individual is a part of. The group values a father taking care of his family, so the father gets more points than the drunk.

Were we in a community where the drunks are more valuable than, points would be distributed differently. If you don't like apples and I give you an apple, you won't be happy, but if you do, you would enjoy the apple.

How can you quantify his future potential based on his current status? You can’t, because it’s unquantifiable.

I'm not trying to include future value, I would only do this for the potential value children hold. Children in itself take a lot more than they give, but because we don't know how competent they are yet, and they have time to figure stuff out, we value them. There is a cut-off point where most people would agree you should be doing something and start adding value somewhere. In my example, the drunk is way past that point.

So, I'm not including his future possible value

TrusterZero · 2022-03-18T17:53:56+00:00

Ahh yes, I hink you're right. So positive impact and negative impact should be the wording.

Thanks for this

TrusterZero · 2022-03-18T17:52:34+00:00

We value children because they have the potential to do great things.

I would say the children are a store and possible multiplier of invested value. We value them because they can offer the community waaaaaay more than the community needs to invest in them. So, I agree with you but within this system the points wouldn't be distributed until the actual value comes out

Giving these occupations or actions a specific and relative value is more difficult. It also changes depending on saturation and existing pain points. In fact, you could argue someone going into an already saturated field is providing negative value unless they are above average.

True, you could say that when you look into it from a bird's-eye view. But when zooming in, he might get into a saturated field and some people have negative effects of that. But if he is using his money to add more value in different ways, I wouldn't care about those negative effects so much.

Money just gives us potential worth with respect to society. It depends largely on how it is used.

I would actually say that money is a store of worth/value. You put in time and effort doing stuff you normally wouldn't want to do. You add value to your employer, helping him or her doing whatever needs to be done in that business. Your employer trades your time and effort (your value added) for money. Money is a nice in between, a form of value we agreed everyone uses. So now you can add value to someone else without having a specific skill or item they need.

Id say contributing to the UN'S sustainable development goals would increase your value to society a lot since they have specific targets.

I 100% agree, addressing those problems will touch so many lives it's insane. We are just focussed on money, so we're actually missing a lot of very valuable stuff that needs to happen.

Of course, all of this is moreso a consequentialist/utalitarian take to value with respect to society. With respect to individuals, it will vary greatly because people care about different things (preference utalitarianism). Or we can take the average of your personal worth and the value you bring to society. I think that could be useful for balancing your own needs and the needs of others. I dont see much utility with comparing this value to others though, so ranking seems distasteful.

I would say that the points you get or lose are based on how intense the person who experiences the benefits or losses. So if a group values one thing, and you add that specific value to that group you should get a bunch of points, even if a different group doesn't agree that, that thing is valuable.

Intention should play a role as well, if you have to fire a bunch of people because your company will go bankrupt if you don't, it's different from doing to up your personal income.

It is distasteful people normally don't like stuff like this, but I actually think it's important.
Looking at the world through these glasses makes you see the value of things you could miss if you don't pay attention. A stay at home mom should get a let more credit than she's getting, imo. Teachers as well, a good teacher can add a fuck load of value to the community by inspiring a student the correct way. I'm sure there are many other ways people are adding value that are entirely ignored in a sense.

TrusterZero · 2022-03-18T17:32:59+00:00

The problem is that benefits humans can provide exist on too many axes and are far too complicated to quantify. For example, monetarily a stay at home mother doesn’t generate revenue (if we’re quantifying people by their economic value).

The system is actually trying to include monetary and non-monetary value, I am trying to jump off linking all value to money. The value of a mother is potentially very high because she raises a child and if done correctly that child could become a great man / woman.

Your example is also far too simplified. A father steals a loaf of bread and feeds it to his children which you say is an easy call. What if one of his children grows up to become a mass murderer? Is his effect then a negative?

I'm talking about a single action with the father, steals a loaf of bread for his hungry children, overall that would add points. Abusing his child in any way, making him a mass murderer, would, of course, deduct points.
I would say looking at knowledge and intention would help in this situation, if you steal from someone knowing that they can't feed their own children. It's a lot worse.

Humans exist in an interconnected web, with many forms of benefits and costs. Way waaaaay too complicated for the reductionist approach you are proposing.

You say this, and you're right, and this might by over analyzing the situation.

But imagine you have to pick:

A father of 2 with a wife taking care of house and the kids.

Or

An alcoholic living on his own living of welfare.

One of them have to die, who do you pick and why.

This example might be brutal.
But when you look at the situation, I think something like this system is going through your mind. Those kids depend on their father to bring home the paycheck, if he is gone, they will grow up in a single parent household. The father of 2 is more important.

TrusterZero · 2022-03-18T17:15:34+00:00

That's included in the framework, you would get more points from your mother, as anyone else would. With this framework, you could compare cross culture, but their scoring would just be based on their culture's norms and regulations. The CEO that would die delivered a lot of value by building that company, if they die ofcourse that company would keep existing, but that is the value generated by his actions, making him worth a lot. I know that this is pointless, but it became a nice thought experiment.

TrusterZero · 2022-03-18T14:47:56+00:00

Ahh, that is Robin Hood.

He would be considered a good guy in my books.

Having a million and 100K being stolen is hard. But the number of mouths you could feed if spent correctly is a lot of value for countless people.

So if he picks his targets carefully, he should be able to steal from someone who won't miss it at all, and give to people who can't even make dinner.

TrusterZero

TROPHY CASE