Ray20

> doesn’t have the same benefits to society at large.

The benefits to society will be larger. Just think about it: when you replace a dirty dangerous jobs, the workers simply have nowhere to go, and they begin to generate losses for society in one form or another. Because initially, they took this dirty, dangerous jobs because they had no choice.

But when you firing educated workers en mass, society not only receives from software all the benefits that it received from workers, but all other fields are also starting to develop because these educated workers are taking on other jobs, jobs that have never been filled by educated workers before. Jobs that are understaffed because they are too dirty or too dangerous.

This will be a huge boost even for areas not directly affected by AI.

I mean, yes. The invention of AI that replaces virtually all workers would certainly pose a serious challenge to society. But that's nothing compared to what would happen if Jesus descended from the sky and turned off gravity for the entire planet.

Because we invent machines not to free ourselves from labor (inventing machines is a huge amount of labor by itself), but to overcome the greed of the workers.

Hasn't every such technological development been accompanied by opponents of its implementation?

At least now, things aren't so bad, and today's Luddites aren't trashing offices of ai-companies and hanging their employees and executives on nearby poles and trees.

> I thought the Republicans were the party for rich?

Isn't it the other way around? I mean, in the Internet, it's the democratic side that's constantly complaining about how stupid, uneducated rednecks elected dictator Trump.

>It is not possible to censor the internet when VPNs are freely available.

What's stopping VPN providers from being forced to censor the internet?

Obviously, yes. A crime is a crime, so what difference does it make what country it was committed in?

At the moment, the US looks much more democratic and liberal than the EU.

Yeah, shure. Germany, which started WW2, and France, which collapsed and capitulated less than a year later.

There have been no wars in Europe for 75 years because for those 75 years the United States single-handedly decided with whom Europe would start wars.

In reality, this isn't a very serious threat. Rather, we're concerned about AI as a tool for strengthening totalitarian regimes.

> WW2 was so horrific that Europeans were willing to do anything to prevent it again

But this is total childish nonsense. We gained 75 years of peace in Europe not because the war was terrible, but because the entire world was divided between the USA and the USSR. And, as it happened, these two countries decided not to fight each other in a full-scale war.

> He believed in a universal basic income (Agrarian Justice)

I am, of course, only superficially familiar with his works, but calling what Paine proposed a basic income is extremely stupid.

This is a trivial concept of viewing territories as a natural resource, specifically, land, not productive assets in general. With the logic that land is not a product of human activity, and therefore, by acquiring land as "ownership", a person obtains it at the expense of everyone else, and it's logical to force them to compensate for this.

And it certainly can't be called a basic income if you look at the proposed tax burden. It's simply another form of tax redistribution, and in almost every respect, more capitalist compared to the tax distribution systems of that time, (and certainly of today).

What's illegal? Changing prices? Giving discounts? As I understand it, the EU, as always, is using solutions to problems that are worse than the problems themselves.

And so, instead of a situation where the price, taking into account the fake discount, becomes, on average, a little higher on the day of the sale, we get a situation where... the price, taking into account the fake discount, becomes, on average, a little higher on the day of the sale, and much higher the whole month before that.

> doesn't move the situation any closer to liberation of their people and their homeland.

From Hamas?

> It's not like the Gazans have any money to speak of.

This is more of an argument in favor of the other side. It immediately becomes clear why they don't have the money.

> You’d prefer that the owner of a UK pro-LGBT site could be extradited to Uganda over some anti-gay law? Should BBC reporters be sent to the gulag for writing an unfavorable article about Russia?

Indeed, a good argument against globalization and international law. So yeah, fortunately, international laws and international cooperation are not yet sufficiently developed, and extradition requests for such reasons are not a common occurrence yet.

> why would I be subject to their laws?

For the same reason that a person under British jurisdiction is subject to its laws. I mean, laws, including British ones, exist for a reason. And usually, that reason isn't "because they're British," and this reason makes sense regarding to non-residents as much as it does to residents.

> Just because it's accessible globally means I now have to factor in every possible regulation from around the world?

Literally. Unfortunately, international laws and international cooperation are not yet sufficiently developed, and extradition requests for such reasons are not a common occurrence yet.

> The burden shouldn't fall on me

The burden doesn't fall on you. That's not how laws work. Laws usually work like this: The British government decides that certain actions are harmful to the UK, and to prevent them, it punishes those who commit them. So, on what basis should you be granted an exception to this logic? These prohibited actions don't become any less harmful to the UK just because they were committed by someone in another jurisdiction.

> Just because some UK user might visit my website doesn't mean I now have to follow all UK laws if I don't actually do business there

That's exactly what it means.

On what basis should you be allowed to violate British law when interacting with a British resident? Because you're not under British jurisdiction? That would be incredibly illogical. Not only would it mean that people and companies under British jurisdiction are privileged by the British legal system over those in other jurisdictions, but it would also raise questions about the need for such legislation if the British legal system accepts that it's okay for people from other jurisdictions to violate it.

> as some sort of defense of the (otherwise) indefensible

Trying to dispute this fact reveals your inexperience and out-of-touch worldviews. And frankly, I'm not entirely understand what you think this fact is defending.

> The fundamental needs of humanity aren't infinite: a safe home, nutritious food, healthcare, and education are the sum total of human needs

You are literally listing needs that are insatiable.

Let me repeat, there are hundreds of millions of people in the world working for 10-20 cents an hour. Try talking to them and ask them what salary a person needs to get "safe home, nutritious food, healthcare, and education". You'll almost certainly hear a figure around a couple of dollars per hour, maybe even less.

And no, it's not about the cost of living, it's about the fact that in their opinion, anyone with access to the American labor market (even as an illegal worker) makes several times more money than they need to get "safe home, nutritious food, healthcare, and education". Because these human needs are exactly as infinite as other "superfluous to survival" needs.

> Capitalism incentivizes the misuse of these surplus resources to create value for existing stakeholders

Or, in the opinion of people earning 10-20 cents an hour, the enormous salaries of American workers earning the American Minimum Wage. American workers EVERY year earn more money than American billionaires have accumulated over generations. What a enormous source for distribution and building a fair post-capitalist society!

But alas, if the builders of a post-capitalist society cannot convince even the most needy workers to show class solidarity and give up $6 of their $8 minimum wage in the name of avoiding "the misuse of these surplus resources" and "safe home, nutritious food, healthcare, and education" for every human on the planet, what can we expect from capital, which is in a much more advantageous negotiating position?

> 100 years ago people said electricity would be more efficient than humans in every single aspect?

Yes, literally.

> What alternatives would be more fair, from your perspective?

It would be more fair for the Americans to first return to Europe and only then voice their valuable opinions about fairness.

>In a post-scarcity society

Human needs unlimited. There can't be any "post-scarcity society".

The transition point to a post-scarcity society is in the eyes of the beholder, and moves away from them at the same speed with which they approach it.

From the perspective of the hundreds of millions of people working for 10 cents an hour, any American, even the poorest of them, whose only available job is a minimum wage of $8 an hour, has long since passed that point of post-scarcity society.

But try convincing minimum wage American that he's beyond that point and that he needs to give up $6 out of $8 because "there are no scarcity after $2 per hour". Then you will know the real opinion of people about "more equitable distribution of resources, incentivize stronger environmental policies to minimize waste, and drive technological innovation towards preservation"

It's funny that just over 100 years ago, they were saying EXACTLY the same thing about electricity. Ultimately, history has shown all the reasons to to keep a capitalism society.

How does the occurring of AGI lead to the need for UBI?

> outside of something like what's currently happening in Ukraine.

Typical slippery slope. "The problem comes in because military force is never the complete solution in and of itself outside of something like <insert any use of army>"

> It is still a good idea to censor the people in category two.

I mean how can you censor the WHO?

> WHO initially got wrong

But they don't got something wrong, they, as you put it, were "bullshitting", and it was obvious to any person with a three-digit IQ

Why would they go there? Well, except in situations where they're not needed in America due to a lack of talent?

People don't go to America because the American president is a charming and polite gentleman. They go there because a talented factory worker can easily make 150k a year, and a talented software engineer 500k a year.

And what does Europe offer to those people? One and a half times a cashier's salary and commuting to work by eco-friendly bike? Seriously?

Who cares what people asking? America's reputation has long been built on the fact that America has the largest economy, the largest army, and does whatever the f.сk it wants.

Because Ukrainians do not hold Muslim terrorist views?

A good policy of enlightening all the fools who imagined that some kind of "free world" exists.