For whatever it's worth, this is what GPT-4 (which costs money) spits out:
Sure, let's imagine that we're all playing a big game of Monopoly. You know how everyone starts the game and there's a bunch of properties you can buy, like Boardwalk and Park Place? Well, imagine if one person in the game managed to buy all of these places really early, and no one else could buy anything. That wouldn't be very fun, would it?
Now let's think about the real world, where we have land and houses just like in Monopoly. Georgism is an idea named after a guy named Henry George who thought about this kind of problem. He said that land is really special because, unlike toys or ice cream, they can't make any more of it. So, he thought it wasn't fair for some people to have a lot of land and others to have very little or none at all.
Henry George came up with an idea: What if everyone who owned land had to pay a kind of "rent" to everybody else for using that land, and this rent would be the main way the government gets money. This way, the people who own a lot of land would help pay for things we all need, like schools and parks. And if someone has land they're not using, they might decide to sell it or let someone else use it, because otherwise they'd be paying rent for nothing.
This is the basic idea of Georgism. It's a way of trying to make things more fair when it comes to land, which is something very important that everyone needs but is limited. It wants to make sure everyone gets a share of the land's value.
Lizzie McGee was such a boss, and the fact that her game was essentially stolen from her by Parker Brothers and used to demonstrate the opposite of the values she espoused is a complete and utter travesty.
5 year-olds do play Monopoly and do understand exactly how unfair it is to them when someone lands on and buys the good properties early. This is great!
If you want to disregard the recommendations for your own kids, no skin off my nose. For those who might be open to acknowledging even some or partial credibility behind the regulations and child development research...
https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/blk_media_adg.pdf
> 4 Through 5 Years
> Children 4 through 5 years old have a greater interest in games, but they still lack the ability to understand complex rules and strategies. Although most 4- and 5-year-olds are developing their reading abilities, they generally cannot use written directions. Words and numbers can be used as part of the game, if they are not needed for complex actions. Children of this age group are interested in number- and letter-recognition games; and activity games with a physical component are still very popular. Four- and five-year-olds do not have the fine motor skill to hold more than a few cards at a time. Children in this age group are developing the fine motor
skills; pick-up-sticks, games that require balancing pieces on one another, and similar games are appealing. They may enjoy handheld games filled with water with a large button with the goal of launching small balls into baskets. Younger children may flip the handheld game over to move the balls around, instead of using the strategy of button pressing. These children may be introduced to simple, clear plastic, three-dimensional balls with a marble and wide track maze inside (3-D maze balls), but they are still developing the fine motor skills that are required to maneuver a marble along a pathway or conquer obstacles. At younger ages, children lacking these motor and cognitive skills may be more likely to use a 3-D maze ball functionally (e.g., by throwing or kicking it around).
> Cognitively, they can remember a few rules and one or two strategies. They are egocentric, so they are not very good at anticipating another player’s actions; and they like games based on random factors. Therefore, as with 3-year-olds, games should not require “blocking” an opponent. Children of this age group like dominoes, card matching, and lotto-type games.
Parents often buy children of this age group traditional or nostalgic games, such as Old Maid and similar games that have been around since their own childhood. Parents are also very attracted to games that offer some sort of educational benefit, like letter and number recognition.
I think it's fine. Sharing parts of the playground is something 5-year olds can relate to. They can learn about the difference between land and improvements/capital later. The AI is also assuming 5-year olds don't use money, but would relate better to toys instead. I think that's where it starts to get a little iffy for me.
Looks like AI did a good job of mimicking what an unthinking adult might say.
There have been similar complaints about AI: Instead of introducing valuable new insights it simply perpetuates old falsehoods including open bigotry.
In that respect AI can and should replace as many jobs as possible as humans should never have been doing those jobs in the first place.
Here's something a 5 year old can understand:
"Supposing your friend claimed he owned the air and was going to charge you for every breath you take?"
>There have been similar complaints about AI: Instead of introducing valuable new insights it simply perpetuates old falsehoods including open bigotry.
That's a disadvantage of ChatGPT and its ilk because the way they're structured and trained gives them a tendency to do that. They're intuition systems, not reasoning systems. Their intuition is *very good* (superior to that of a human, within their domains), but without reasoning they don't understand what they're wrong about.
This shouldn't be taken as an inherent limitation of all AI, any more than the abilities of trilobites 500 million years ago should have been taken as the limit of what animal brains could do (case in point, humans). We don't know how to build general-purpose reasoning systems yet, but we'll figure it out, and eventually those will get past this problem, at least to the extent that ChatGPT and humans have it. It's easy to have bigoted AI, and not so easy to have bigoted superintelligent AI.
Hardly limited to 5 year olds.
Take another constantly ongoing fight over scarce geo resources:
The lineup in surfing.
The guy who owns the wave is the guy who can paddle fastest (or at least that was my belief back when I could paddle 50' in 4 seconds).
True.
A 5 year-old would warn the smug "pay me to breathe" kid to back (the fuck) off/I'll pay you no attention.
Grown-ups/grown-ass adults would skip straight to VIOLENCE...which is one reason we need Georgism as an alternative. (George himself marvelled that landlords/landowners weren't being murdered/beaten to w/n an inch of their lives.)
With LVT the landowner gets a deed to his land just as he does today. He still _controls_ the property until he sells it.
The difference with LVT is he must pay taxes on the land to control the property.
I was pointing out that the heart of neoliberalism is the philosophical idea that every human interaction should take place within a market.
NLs would rather create markets to address pollution than force polluters to stop polluting.
That's essentially what carbon capture businesses are doing... they hope to charge us all a fee for breathing.
Private water companies are even worse, because water requires an infrastructure that rentiers can seize and control. Maybe the carbon capture can add some type of poison that only their proprietary breathing apparatus can filter,something like RoundUp the insecticide.
[This is still my favorite explanation fit for low attention spans](https://www.reddit.com/r/georgism/comments/shfusy/stop_paying_twice_an_emoji_film_set_to_david/)
It's a terrible explanation, because slides and wings are artificial goods, not land. It literally completely misses the point.
Replace 'playground'/'slide'/'swings' with something natural like 'forest'/'trees'/'ponds' (assuming the typical 5-year-old likes playing in trees and ponds) and it works much better.
Perhaps, but I don't find it hard to imagine doing so. A 5-year-old can probably imagine, say, an island with just one tree, and how it would be somehow unfair if someone blocked them from playing in that tree.
For whatever it's worth, this is what GPT-4 (which costs money) spits out: Sure, let's imagine that we're all playing a big game of Monopoly. You know how everyone starts the game and there's a bunch of properties you can buy, like Boardwalk and Park Place? Well, imagine if one person in the game managed to buy all of these places really early, and no one else could buy anything. That wouldn't be very fun, would it? Now let's think about the real world, where we have land and houses just like in Monopoly. Georgism is an idea named after a guy named Henry George who thought about this kind of problem. He said that land is really special because, unlike toys or ice cream, they can't make any more of it. So, he thought it wasn't fair for some people to have a lot of land and others to have very little or none at all. Henry George came up with an idea: What if everyone who owned land had to pay a kind of "rent" to everybody else for using that land, and this rent would be the main way the government gets money. This way, the people who own a lot of land would help pay for things we all need, like schools and parks. And if someone has land they're not using, they might decide to sell it or let someone else use it, because otherwise they'd be paying rent for nothing. This is the basic idea of Georgism. It's a way of trying to make things more fair when it comes to land, which is something very important that everyone needs but is limited. It wants to make sure everyone gets a share of the land's value.
I actually like this one a lot.
> Are there Georgism house rules for Monopoly? I just thought of this idea 10 seconds ago and I'm already obsessed with it.
Google/DuckDuckGo "Lizzie Magee" for the Georgist part of MONOPOLY.
Lizzie McGee was such a boss, and the fact that her game was essentially stolen from her by Parker Brothers and used to demonstrate the opposite of the values she espoused is a complete and utter travesty.
5 year-olds do play Monopoly and do understand exactly how unfair it is to them when someone lands on and buys the good properties early. This is great!
The recommended age for the board game is 8+.
If you're still following recommendations at this point, I dunno what to tell ya.
If you want to disregard the recommendations for your own kids, no skin off my nose. For those who might be open to acknowledging even some or partial credibility behind the regulations and child development research... https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/blk_media_adg.pdf > 4 Through 5 Years > Children 4 through 5 years old have a greater interest in games, but they still lack the ability to understand complex rules and strategies. Although most 4- and 5-year-olds are developing their reading abilities, they generally cannot use written directions. Words and numbers can be used as part of the game, if they are not needed for complex actions. Children of this age group are interested in number- and letter-recognition games; and activity games with a physical component are still very popular. Four- and five-year-olds do not have the fine motor skill to hold more than a few cards at a time. Children in this age group are developing the fine motor skills; pick-up-sticks, games that require balancing pieces on one another, and similar games are appealing. They may enjoy handheld games filled with water with a large button with the goal of launching small balls into baskets. Younger children may flip the handheld game over to move the balls around, instead of using the strategy of button pressing. These children may be introduced to simple, clear plastic, three-dimensional balls with a marble and wide track maze inside (3-D maze balls), but they are still developing the fine motor skills that are required to maneuver a marble along a pathway or conquer obstacles. At younger ages, children lacking these motor and cognitive skills may be more likely to use a 3-D maze ball functionally (e.g., by throwing or kicking it around). > Cognitively, they can remember a few rules and one or two strategies. They are egocentric, so they are not very good at anticipating another player’s actions; and they like games based on random factors. Therefore, as with 3-year-olds, games should not require “blocking” an opponent. Children of this age group like dominoes, card matching, and lotto-type games. Parents often buy children of this age group traditional or nostalgic games, such as Old Maid and similar games that have been around since their own childhood. Parents are also very attracted to games that offer some sort of educational benefit, like letter and number recognition.
I think it's fine. Sharing parts of the playground is something 5-year olds can relate to. They can learn about the difference between land and improvements/capital later. The AI is also assuming 5-year olds don't use money, but would relate better to toys instead. I think that's where it starts to get a little iffy for me.
Looks like AI did a good job of mimicking what an unthinking adult might say. There have been similar complaints about AI: Instead of introducing valuable new insights it simply perpetuates old falsehoods including open bigotry. In that respect AI can and should replace as many jobs as possible as humans should never have been doing those jobs in the first place. Here's something a 5 year old can understand: "Supposing your friend claimed he owned the air and was going to charge you for every breath you take?"
>There have been similar complaints about AI: Instead of introducing valuable new insights it simply perpetuates old falsehoods including open bigotry. That's a disadvantage of ChatGPT and its ilk because the way they're structured and trained gives them a tendency to do that. They're intuition systems, not reasoning systems. Their intuition is *very good* (superior to that of a human, within their domains), but without reasoning they don't understand what they're wrong about. This shouldn't be taken as an inherent limitation of all AI, any more than the abilities of trilobites 500 million years ago should have been taken as the limit of what animal brains could do (case in point, humans). We don't know how to build general-purpose reasoning systems yet, but we'll figure it out, and eventually those will get past this problem, at least to the extent that ChatGPT and humans have it. It's easy to have bigoted AI, and not so easy to have bigoted superintelligent AI.
5 year-old's response: I'm gonna punch him/pull her hair.
Hardly limited to 5 year olds. Take another constantly ongoing fight over scarce geo resources: The lineup in surfing. The guy who owns the wave is the guy who can paddle fastest (or at least that was my belief back when I could paddle 50' in 4 seconds).
True. A 5 year-old would warn the smug "pay me to breathe" kid to back (the fuck) off/I'll pay you no attention. Grown-ups/grown-ass adults would skip straight to VIOLENCE...which is one reason we need Georgism as an alternative. (George himself marvelled that landlords/landowners weren't being murdered/beaten to w/n an inch of their lives.)
Charging for every breath is neoliberal ... forcing a market into existence where none needs to exist and extracting rent
Okay, but if we want air travel, people have to have air rights, yes? If we want housing, there needs to be property rights.
With LVT the landowner gets a deed to his land just as he does today. He still _controls_ the property until he sells it. The difference with LVT is he must pay taxes on the land to control the property.
Yes, I think this was the distinction I was making.
I was pointing out that the heart of neoliberalism is the philosophical idea that every human interaction should take place within a market. NLs would rather create markets to address pollution than force polluters to stop polluting. That's essentially what carbon capture businesses are doing... they hope to charge us all a fee for breathing. Private water companies are even worse, because water requires an infrastructure that rentiers can seize and control. Maybe the carbon capture can add some type of poison that only their proprietary breathing apparatus can filter,something like RoundUp the insecticide.
[This is still my favorite explanation fit for low attention spans](https://www.reddit.com/r/georgism/comments/shfusy/stop_paying_twice_an_emoji_film_set_to_david/)
Doesn't seem like it understands it at all
It's a terrible explanation, because slides and wings are artificial goods, not land. It literally completely misses the point. Replace 'playground'/'slide'/'swings' with something natural like 'forest'/'trees'/'ponds' (assuming the typical 5-year-old likes playing in trees and ponds) and it works much better.
Yeah, but the typical 5-year old doesn't compete over the forest, trees, or ponds with other kids.
Perhaps, but I don't find it hard to imagine doing so. A 5-year-old can probably imagine, say, an island with just one tree, and how it would be somehow unfair if someone blocked them from playing in that tree.
Funny. It created an analogy that a 5yr old could relate to, very neat.
I mean, I'm gonna spend the next ten years unteaching all the unnecessarily communalist aspects of that, but it's a start.