Drewelite

I think it's important to consider these elements and try to mitigate them as we move forward. But they'll never be completely fixed.

If anything has the power to collapse capitalism, it's AI automation. Capitalism is all about keeping people working for the benefit of those above with the threat of not getting what you need to survive. That threat is predicated by there not being enough to go around.

Once we're able to make an enormous surplus without the labor of the common man; the basis of capitalism begins to crumble. I fear that if we give corporations time, they'll try and make the world run on AI WITHOUT anyone losing jobs. That terrifies me more, because people will accept the status quo but lose the only power they ever had in capitalism: The combined value of their labor. A strike doesn't work so well if your whole job is pushing a button to make AI do it.

I think the beginning of AI will be painful for the reasons we both have outlined. But I believe that's growing pains towards a better future. Giving corps time to boil the frog won't be good. Keeping the corps fighting each other to be the first by pushing this tech forward is the quickest way for them to create their own obsolescence.

Yeah, because it's good stuff to point out and think on... But ultimately inconsequential as the previous comment points out. The world is getting AI eventually, the question is do we want to be the first ones with the keys?

All the same arguments could have been made about the internet. Inb4 someone makes the incredibly likewarm take that the internet was a mistake. It was inevitable, if we had "pumped-the-brakes" on it we wouldn't have found some clean way to implement the internet where no one gets hurt. Someone who wasn't concerned about ethics would have got there first to set the standard.

Actually a better analogy for AI might be the nuclear bomb. If we slow down someone else will get their first. Silicone Valley doesn't have the best track record with ethics. But call me crazy, I'd rather them figure it out before China or Russia. Because they sure as shit ain't using their brakes.

Yeah, same respect. I get it. But do you think you are the first person to tell them the earth is round? What are you actually attempting to accomplish when you speak to this person?

Right and that should be the target of our efforts. Not fighting over scientific research they've already decided to reject. Encourage them to think more critically. You can only encourage someone when you have their ear. You only have someone's ear when they're comfortable around you. Demeaning someone's intelligence and telling them their world view is a toxic lie, is a quick way to convince them they'll only ever be at odds with you.

It's often that they think those people know but aren't telling the truth. Then more and more people start agreeing. So they're not the one person who figured it out, it's a revolution!

Just because they set the bar low, doesn't mean it's not still intellectual superiority to step over it. The fact of the matter, as you pointed out, is that they were taught everything you're about to say in elementary school. The fact that they didn't learn the earth is round implies there's more going on in their head than a lack of information.

I'm inferring from your tone that you're not planning to compassionately listen to their perspective to provide constructive criticism. So yeah, it sounds like you're going to spend a few minutes calling them stupid. Which has no benefit other than stroking the intellectual part of your ego. It actually will likely make the world a worse place, because you'll present yourself to them as someone they don't want to be like. Further entrenching them in their views.

It's still ideas the group agrees with. The idea is: that we all disagree with this idea. It's subtle, until you look at the same story on CNN vs Fox. Two bubbles discussing the same issue with two VERY different emotional valences.

To put it another way: the discussion of these ideas that are oppositional to the community, is not with the intention of seriously considering them. It's with the intention of dismissing them in a group act of catharsis. It maintains the bubble and safely dispatches an idea that threatened to burst it.

We also do it to ourselves. Everyone has someone in their life they'd rather mute. But they're forced to coexist with them. Online is so appealing because you can find communities of like minded individuals. Then forget all about those other opinions you don't like.

You grow in this bubble as they grow in theirs. By the next time you're forced to interact, you feel so alien and unpleasant to one another it's confusing and frightening. Corporations are right there to sell you on a story about how the other side are demons destroying the world. We gobble it up.

There's projects that fully replace the Google Home Mini mobo. No reason you couldn't do that with Alexa

In my head the batteries would work somewhat like the electric scooters you can rent around big cities. There would be battery companies that pay stations to stock their batteries. Then EV owners pay for the juice they used, plus a little extra for the wear, plus a little extra to make it worth it for the battery companies when they swap to a new battery. So you're essentially renting the batteries.

"Illegal artwork" lmao

That's why. Long time users will flip, so they try and spin it in their favor as hard as they can before release.