391–400 of 521 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean. From a financial PoV that's exactly what happened
Did they, though? Intel, IBM, DEC and Honeywell were big names, but they're not FAANG. Other than Nintendo, how many games companies today were around back then?
End result for 100-16 % of Americans is the same
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trump sells all sorts of things. Anyone buying any of it is a fool.
I agree. But when the opposition tells you your shitty life will remain shitty in a best case scenario it isn't very inspiring or invigorating which you need to entice people to actually go vote for someone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd answer: No, we should not have to work to eat, they should not be mandatory, and no not everyone has to work. But those problems need solved first before completely upending the current system. The system does need changed, but that change must happen before mass unemployment, not after the fact.
> we should not have to work to eat It takes time and effort and resources to produce the food you eat. If you aren't expending that time and effort and resources yourself, either to produce the food, or to produce something you can trade for it (or trade for money you use to buy it), who will? If the answer is "other people", why should other people have to work to produce the food you eat while you don't? If the an…
We are looking at a foreseeable future where machines do all the work.
You are saying all the benefits from those machines should go to those who invested their capital to create them, forever. And those without capital to invest in those machines will have nothing.
Why is that a good system?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
an article on one person? cmon it seems like Chinese people have much more faith in their govt than Western countries, and subsequently trust them more in distributing the benefits of AI (in aggregate ofc)
> Chinese people have much more faith in their govt than Western countries, but you know why that is right (really hoping you know the difference and where this comes from and its not culture)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The only hope we have is that they're wrong, and their power to change things will be minimal. What even is the optimistic outcome if they are right? What are we all working towards? Like do people think that these AI companies will create some superintelligence, suck up all the financial benefits of that, and then just decide to share it with the rest of us out of kindness? Because I legitimately can't see a realis…
If they're right: * Use AI to eliminate all white collar jobs. * Combine AI with robotics to eliminate all blue collar jobs. * Combine AI with military hardware to kill any rabble who may become threats to the ruling class. The most optimistic outcome is that it doesn't happen in our lifetimes. Aside from that, the best you can hope for is that the ruling class enslaves the rest but treats them well enough that most…
Ok, you didn’t need to laugh that hard.
Stated preferences vs revealed preferences. People say they don't like it but they still use it.
That's a false dichotomy; I prefer kayaking over work, but I still have to work. We've all seen stories about performance evaluations that include "how much AI are you using?" We've all seen Microsoft shove it into the OS and even the physical keyboard. We've all had the little suggestions pop up in Gmail.
Stated preferences vs revealed preferences. People say they don't like it but they still use it.
It's no surprise. The wild tech optimism of the 1990s and 2000s has completely fallen apart as time and time again tech companies have proved to be some of the most hostile actors in most American's lives. Perhaps edged out only by things such as actual violent crime and partisan hatred. (which itself, of course, is stoked to the absolute maximum in part due to technology trends in the past 15 years or so) The loneli…
This... this... this! This resonates soooo deeply with me. The wild thing is that these tech "systems" (aka companies) are made up of ostensibly good people. It's often impossible to look at individual people and say, "they're the cause of this damage." I believe that some form of evil (this word feel inadequate) emerges amidst these large systems that is incredibly hard to pinpoint. It's why dissension is so fucking…
But with powerful AI models the philosophical and moral and religious questions have become impossible to ignore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there are plenty of places where machine learning algorithms make sense, but customer service is not one of them. I don't care about human vs AI, I just want my issue resolved. Whatever does that the best and fastest. Or even better, for there to not be an issue in the first place.
The root of all our evils, right here. We only want the fastest cheapest thing possible, without thinking about how it impacts literally everything else about our world.