Paul cockshott talks about it on youtube. Hid videos have a few thousand views though which i find odd since itd pretty interesting. He mostly talks about computers in the context of setting prices though snd not ai. He also wrote a couple if books.

>>106401506
Pretty good unless crops fail.
And they will, so farming is definitely going to have to be your focus. It can be partly automated farming.
But you have to grow alot of variety and in large amounts. I'm talking species that nobody even thinks about in order to get oils and medicine and things.
And you can pretty much forget about plastic anything unless it's usable in a 3d printer that you can fabricate all parts for except the ics. Cleanup of everything would be a nightmare, but with enough people putting effort towards it may be possible.
Essentially you'd be living like amish. But with circuit boards and vertical farming.

>>106401558
Which frankly sounds comfy. But it's alot of work.

>>106401558
It would have to be alot of land, and a fairly sparse population. And you'd need good trade relations with the outside world, You'd also need to invest in smelting equipment.

>>106401548
So a couple of things. All accounting is based on labor time not money. Training has always been a fuzzy variable but with the advent of ai less so.
The second thing is predicting demand. Did you know demand can be predicted nowadays with 10% accuracy? Itd be way higher in a planned economy.

>>106401613
Oh you think you'd be using llm chatbots for anything in this?
That's pretty hilarious.
You'll be lucky if you have enough spare time energy and resources to play video games.
Old Video games.

>>106401558
You're worried about plastics and you are proposing 3D printers?
If you're going to actually maintain every piece of tech you own, injection molding is the least of your problems.
If you want to be able to control the 3D printers the biggest hurdle would be maintaining the supply chain for the semiconductors you're gonna need.

>>106401684
Indeed, I memtioned that actually, but I should expand on it they'll need something of value to export in exchange for even the smallest and lowest power of Integrated Circuits for control systems of fabrication devices, smelting systems, and agricultural needs.
Unless they want to have their own fabrication plant.

File: solarpunk-farms-by-santer(...).jpg (546 KB, 2160x1215)

546 KB JPG

>>106401558
Sounds a bit solarpunk.
My "ideal" use of technology would be that explored in Hainish cycle Ursula k. Le Guin universes. It's there, but people blend it way more into traditional farming methods or modes of living. Farmers live in small family run homesteads, with a lot of emphasis on how things have always been done. But also with programmable irrigation systems, computers/terminals to communicate or trade with other farms and communities. Technology doesn't change much or at all for centuries. Same goes for other aspects outside of farming. People just go about their lives, kind of technology free, but use it when it's useful (like with study or work) like a computer with digital libraries or data analysis programs. They schedule video calls if they feel like they should, but otherwise rely on radio or telephone for communication. There is no entertainment television, social media or whatever of that crap.

I can imagine a techno-communist state would use technology in a similar fashion. Just purely practical and with longevity and the human aspect in mind.

>>106401613
IMO accounting would be very basic and would mainly consist of recording the inputs and outputs and informing of that to the control center.
You wouldn't have prices, not even in terms of man hours.
The experts would just redirect personnel as necessary based on ad-hoc requirements.

>>106401715
The point of the experiment is what level of technology can be maintained only by importing raw minerals (because in the vast majority of the world you don't have all the minerals required for modern tech readily available).
If you're going to import your highest tier of technology then it becomes a completely different thought experiment and is basically North Korea except with skilled labor (and IMO a much less interesting thought experiment).

>>106401749
Look everything in the world at some point came from just raw materials, even if that raw material is abstract thought and needs, but you're not being very specific about what kinds of materials they can afford or what kind of labor you have access to. Because human systems of prices are driven by wants and needs, and that's capitalism bby.

>>106401786
>what kinds of materials they can afford
That depends on what they can produce. Assume they start out with enough stock of raw materials and machinery to achieve a steady state level of production. The materials only need to be imported for equipment maintenance.

>or what kind of labor you have access to
Assume you can convince the most skilled people on the planet to join the experiment.

>>106401719
That's fine if the technology magically appears out of nowhere, but I don't think you can make a nm scale semiconductor on a farm, especially not "the way things always been done".

>>106401870
It's not the job of farms, it's the job of universities or government run groups to do that. And also, why do you need massive advances in technology anyway?

>>106401930
If you can achieve a certain level of technology that allows you to do certain things that you cannot do with lower levels of tech, like prevent humanity from dying off by living underground in case of a massive asteroid hit, or even living outside Earth if you can mine enough minerals. Or even if you're living on Earth and nothing bad happens, it allows you to defend your society from the outside world.
Besides, technology is cool, who wants to live without electronics? If you only have farms and no factories you won't be having video calls, computers or probably even vacuum tubes, since high vacuum systems are quite sophisticated.
>it's the job of universities or government run groups to do that
You didn't mention anything about that in your post, you only talked about farms living with modern technology without specifying where that technology comes from.

>>106402009
My post is not necessarily about the details of where the resources or tech comes from. But more about the mindset regarding technology. I think many of us, if not most people, have this "Capitalist Realism" way of looking at technology. Greed, consumption, market incentives, adversity of stagnation. Other societies and groups trying to take your resources is inherently a capitalistic way of looking at things. You can extent my description of farms to the way factories work. How research and development works. Perhaps even put that mindset into a military context if the society shares the planet with more expansionist groups.

You mention that technology is cool, but does it actually improve our lives? In terms of happiness, societal cohesion? I highly doubt that and would even argue the opposite. And technological advances in healthcare are more hampered by market powers than advanced (it's not actually beneficial for for-profit research groups to find permanent cures to diabetes, just to name an example).

Maybe I latched a bit more onto the "closed off dictatorial and directed economy" of the OP than you.

>>106402229
>Other societies and groups trying to take your resources is inherently a capitalistic way of looking at things.
Sure, if you define basic facts of life as "a capitalistic way of looking at things", it is.

>You can extent my description of farms to the way factories work.
Your description of farms is "farms live in a traditional way while using technology" without explaining where the technology comes from.

>You mention that technology is cool, but does it actually improve our lives? In terms of happiness, societal cohesion?
It's an irrelevant question. You can go live alone in the wilderness without technology, but you won't be able to convince anyone else to come with you. And even if you did, eventually your community is going to be killed or displaced by people with technology.

>Maybe I latched a bit more onto the "closed off dictatorial and directed economy" of the OP than you.
It's not interesting to think of the scenario where the society is both safe from external influence and well off in terms of natural resources. We already know that subsistence farming is possible.
The interesting scenarios are where it is either susceptible to external attacks or under conditions where life is straight up impossible without advanced technology (like I said, for example in case of an extinction level asteroid hitting the Earth).

File: catsmall.jpg (89 KB, 480x270)

89 KB JPG

>>106401506
the problem is you're basically managing an entire country as a single large company
almost always any given company ends up with shit management until it is forced by running out of money into doing something about it.
but what happens if the company controls the money supply? then i suspect there is nothing to get them out of the rut

>>106402663
There wouldn't be money in this economy, nor barter (at least officially). Everybody would be given the personal supplies they need by the control center.
So in this experiment the KPIs would be the actual volume and quality of goods produced, not money.

>>106401870
>>106401930
>>106402009
Having useful technology that integrated into daily life and doesn't change for centuries but still needs stuff like semiconductor fabs could work, in any society that's not plagued by "line must always go up forever" capitalism

>>106401506
>imported raw materials that don't exist within the territory
whatever tech level china is at, if you have infinite time to do research and buy foreign grad students (human capital is a raw material)

if you mean a more realistic "what can i do if me and my buddies take 'in minecraft' jokes too seriously one summer" there's a million blogs and manuals you can read on primitive/off-grid shit. the main problem with any such plan is that the techbros who want to do it aren't interested in learning how to build a clay kiln so they can make a rocket stove to extract a few grams of iron out of beach sand, and think the only use for electricity is to run servers and that the apex of human achievement is the smartphone and not the surplus of food that it can be intentionally wasted

>>106401719
>describes literally just normal-ass modern farming
>IDS SOLARPUNKK!!!!
a single tractor without anything attached to it probably has more electronics in it than your entire house, and automating irrigation with dams and overflows and shit is literally as old as farming, let alone modern use of automated sprinklers with pvc plumbing

>>106403295
Ok, but China is huge. I'd be interested in what can be achieved in a limited amount of surface.
And also even more difficult situations, like if survival could be achieved underground with no solar input and just geothermal or fission.

I built a prompt to see how much AI can advance this question.

Your task is to build a graph of all the resources needed to build modern nanometer scale semiconductors starting from raw minerals.
Each node represents either a physical object, either a machine or a consumable used in the supply chain and industrial process to manufacture a die.
The graph should have the following format:
{
  "nodes":
  [
    {
      id: ..., #unique integer id for each node
      input_nodes: [...], #A list containing all the nodes that are used as input for this node. If the nodes are reusibale (for example machinery) they can be inputs for multiple other nodes. If they are consumables then they are an input for a limited amount of nodes (as many as the amount of material can be used for before running out).
      node_description: ..., # Natural language string explaining the physical constitution of the node.
      node_manufacturing_description: # Natural language string explaining the process used to construct the node from its inputs.
     },
     ...
  ]
}

>>106403522
you aren't a dwarf and plump helmets aren't real so no

>>106403545
Wow how did you learn to code so well ??

>>106401506
>highly intelligent, emotionally stable, skilled and fully on board
Any debate rules in the starting condition of the first holdship?

>>106403596
I was personally taught by Richard Stallman

>>106403545
would not have actually voted to recommend we would publish details of any prompt central to the biome

>>106402894
then it is also doomed to fail. it'll never realize nor have a fungible way to allocate goods to recipients. at the very least it needs barter...

>>106403949
Fungible is how you die, trying to force everyone into the same model is fallacious.

>>106403949
People don't need much to live. Personal preferences and needs can be accommodated based on whatever is reasonable given the available resources.
As for allocating goods to production teams, that would be precomputed before starting the experiment. If the experiment fails, correct the resource distribution schema and launch the experiment from scratch again.

>>106404083
>correct the resource distribution schema
Those are domain expert configuration events, not knowing who has this seat means I have to rationally kill one or three members of the team since otherwise you don't have a physical way to measure if it is a simulation or not

>>106401506
>dictatorial government
>population fully on board with the mission
anon...

>>106407106
The setup is reasonable, you can leave if it stops seeming right.

>>106407106
we've already established the population is highly intelligent and emotionally stable, so no lolbertarian dissenters to worry about

>>106407824
Op, dear, you don't have to be constrained by the extremes of complete communism and complete capitalism. Frankly, most countries that find success have found it somewhere in between, where regulations attempt to bridge the gap of goodwill and sharing of common resources that capitalism won't incentivize, and where capitalism guides the relatively efficient distribution of resources to keep productivity and overall wealth near the front of the potential curve, creating technology as needed.
Even the late soviet union wasn't entirely communist, partly because of all the corruption. But the point is that these are extremes, and you don't need to be either or.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yErKTVdETpw

>>106407909
If we allowed people to do whatever they wanted, they would focus on useless stuff to be higher in the social hierarchy or to satisfy their hedonic pleasures. We don't want people to spend effort and time making nice housing, nice clothes, entertainment, tasty food etc. beyond the bare minimum.
Besides in this experiment we want to keep the population small.

>>106410398
>social hierarchy or to satisfy
Violates the known parameter "emotionally stable" since it assumes they forget where they are

I asked a question with extremely sensitive value for how many readers could want an official response.

>>106410398
Well what defines nice clothes?
What defines necessary?
People used to buy potato sacks and make dresses out of the fabric. Sometimes the farmers would buy really pretty fabric so that when men bought the potatoes their wives could turn the material into extremely pretty dresses.
Is refridgeration, food preservation and storage necessary?
In the past people would've said, it's not neccessary, but it would sure be greatly appreciated when your sad boy cope meal in the pangs of winter is like the singular onion you dug up from behind the shed.
Bread goes bad immediately. Town bakers used to be extremely important and while bread was an example of high regulation good, bakers still tried to cheat in order to make more.
Food spoilage was always a potential problem.
Tons of Salt, spices, and butter pottage they all help, but they'll give you gout and high blood pressure if you don't wash it away first. There goes the butter you just made, the salt you harvested.
The issue with making what is "only absolutely necessary" is that life sucks if you only make what is absolutely necessary.
Medieval peasants would make balloons and bag pipes and little pin-bowling sets. Was that strictly necessary? No. You had to use up a sheep's bladder and wood and wool and sap. It's definitely not the same level of industrialist consumer culture of today,
But it makes life more worth living.

>>106411188
I'm not saying that hypercapitalist dystopia is the only way to live, but um, communism is dumb. It's not even just dumb in practice, it's also dumb in theory.