realce

We're outsourcing our sovereignty to a machine blob in a black box, the blob will do the thinking for all of those children.

edit: for the authoritarian tyrants that they are (mass reflexive downvotes)

Your response is to rely on opaque knowledge agents produced by the largest and shadiest corporations that humanity has ever known. Your lack of paranoia is a severe vulnerability. Good luck.

If this is so dependably true, then why does this population still suffer loneliness? How many hours of your day do you devote to zoom chats with lonely old people?

I ultimately support your side of the debate - that digital simulation is not a true medicine - but without being honest about humans and human nature, you create empty arguments.

Some in this thread call pornography useless, call cigarettes useless, call drugs useless. However those products are used endlessly and with great satisfaction by billions of humans throughout thousands of years. It's simply not true - these things are useful to humans, quite obviously.

What causes this puritanical disposition regarding human needs and satisfaction while also literally arguing for humanism vs synthetic encroachment? Without acknowledgement of what humans actually are we won't find a real reason that AI chatbots shouldn't replace them.

You speak as if the "real world" for a bedridden and lonely individual is something that they should just endure and enjoy, but you would never choose to switch places with such a person.

https://apnews.com/article/prison-to-plate-inmate-labor-inve...

> Get a grip

I'd suggest you be more curious when others are confident about injustice in the future.

If this is just plainly legal without even the fig-leaf of a TOS, why do we even have the 4th and 5th amendment at all? It's routine for intel/police agencies to purchase ad profiles of citizens, why bother with any fancy NSA super-surveillance when you can just buy an entire history of private conversations and behavioral data from CMG or any other advertiser.

Human labor is the primary pillar of society and has been for all of human history. Services cannot be utilized without capital, capital cannot be acquired without labor. Remove labor and all of it falls apart, which is somehow acceptable to classes whose resources provide escape and comfort when "society" collapses.

Society isn't just a bunch of people going to a football game, it's the totality of human interaction centered around their commercial interactions.

Elysium is not a society anyone with less than billions of dollars should be advocating for.

Human Labor is no longer a "key growth opportunity" it's looking like?

This all ends extremely badly.

This nation is built to support corporations, not personal freedom. This is the result of that architecture.

I know it's hyperbole, but anywhere you look it feels like nobody is really invested in the future - that everyone's just trying to cash out ASAP and run away to the "safe place" of a gated community or something.

It needs to be kept back as a toolset that humans use to address human problems, not a front-line feature. It's not trustworthy, it holds no responsibility, it's not predictable, and it makes the company seem less invested in humanity itself.

What rationalization are we supposed to have for self-worth when robots and AGI do all of "our" labor?

This entire society is melting down so that a handful of billionaires can have and do whatever they dream of, the rest of us are supposed to do what exactly?

We're supposed to find meaning and worth in the scraps that are left?

edit downvotes without rebuttals are equal to "shut up and keep working"

Is this actually a positive outcome or a kick-the-can?

In sincere good-faith: is there even a US law about publishing the names of undercover informants? Isn't that what Dick Chaney and the New York Times did?

could you explain further here?

I apologize if I was unfair, I'm just trying to have a provocative conversation, no offense intended.

Calling an acknowledgement of history either dangerous, rhetoric, or weighed with the burden of intangible implication seems like a way to shame the observer for observing what is obvious. Just mentioning historical violence is not an endorsement of it or a suggestion that it's the only tool available to the slighted. I find that reaction itself to be the actual danger.

It does not state "revolution and violence is the only way forward"

Could provide an constructive alternative viewpoint instead of calling plain facts of history "dangerous" or "rhetoric" as if acknowledgement of history is dangerous?

How?

There will always be companies that make their customers angry. You're really going against people seeking solutions from companies they pay?

I'm amazed anyone would downvote this - how am I disillusion here?

Just think of them as "anti-state actors"

Getting a small VPS with crypto and tunneling from your home seems like a better pathway to me?

Bowling Alleys | The Economics of Everyday Things