Homeowners are bad, but landlords are good? I can’t even imagine how one might twist logic to get to this conclusion… and a home can be a condo in a skyscraper too. You don’t need to monopolize a plot of land here. People should own their homes. You are advocating for feudalism here.

i also think it's REALLY telling the very first question you ask is do you own your own home?

who do i think are the baddies? well, homeowners mostly lol. landowners in general but that's mostly homeowners and the government, with a little bit of bezos and gates sprinkled in (but only a little)

homeowners interests are not compatible with any kind of productivity. (free example, it KILLS labor mobility)

Start searching for soup kitchens

> This is why GDP (PPP) per capita is often considered one of the indicators of a country's standard of living,[3][4] although this can be problematic because GDP per capita is not a measure of personal income

far from "it's a bad measure"

> advertising fall 40%+

temporarily cuz a bunch of leftist controlled corporations (which you seem to hate corporations?) are trying to cancel him lol

Sign up for cryonics, support universal basic income, and advocate for all AI to be open source.

Your own article says it’s a bad measure. That doesn’t account for inequalities in distribution which was the entire point here.

I'm pretty sure we could do a highly compressed simulation that interacts with the way our brains compress information, instead of working at the level of atoms. And it would look as high-resolution as the real world.

Your brain can create high resolution simulations. Once when I had a lucid dream, I looked at the detail in a plant's leaves and was amazed at the full detail I saw when looking closely. If you only do detail where people are attending, it doesn't take much processing power.

countries with better standard of living than USA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Luxembourg *

Liechtenstein *

Singapore *

Ireland *

Monaco *

Qatar *

Bermuda *

Isle of Man *

Switzerland *

Norway

United Arab Emirates *

basically you need oil wealth or to be a tax haven

i agree US healthcare is a shitshow, but it would be way better if it was a free market... also USA ppl are obese partly cuz we have to drive everywhere cuz of zoning regulations, cuz government (which we kind've vote for... sort of, but that's just the tyranny of democracy (which i think is better than autocracy for the record, but I would prefer it if every country had open borders and we could easily switch between countries)

Do you own your own home?

No, and I think home ownership is by far the most toxic part of pretty much every society. We should NOT encourage home ownership. homes are a huge freaking time sink. and you do NOT want to have everyone voting for their land to appreciate. that is why we are in the mess we are in.

Do you make a living wage?

yes

Do you have a six month cushion if you lose your job?

yes

The government part was my literal point. You are the one who brought up Elon. Lol. And no, you don’t live in squalor from consumer protection and worker protection laws. That’s not true.

There are lots of countries with better standard of living than USA that have more vacation days, health care, strong minimum wages.

Capitalism tells you every day that doing anything to hurt corporate profits will lower your standard of living while you sit there with a literal low standard of living.

Amazon workers pee in bottles. I’m pretty sure a world where they get proper break is possible. If Jeff Bezos won’t give his employees bathroom breaks what makes you think he will help take care of all the workers that get laid off when all of his fleets flip to self-driving cars?

It’s amazing that people defend billionaires. Do you own your own home? Do you make a living wage? Do you have a six month cushion if you lose your job? If you can’t answer yes to these three questions then why do you defend this?

Neither are a problem with the full backing of Microsoft, and being in debt due to having to pay back investments will only make them hungrier and faster.

[deleted]

the government are the baddies. along with landowners&copyright&ip holders.

billionaires in modern society have paper fortunes. the wealthiest don't even have physical wealth at all almost, all they have is control of the corporations whose profits they drive, there is nothing for you to take from them... except for control.

and once you take that control and hand it over to the government, you will live in squalor.

(source - observation, on the contrary you are the one who is drinking in propaganda, media, including social media, harps on all your talking points 24/7 lol)

Yup, a business has its revenue from advertising fall 40%+ and you call that a big success from a corporate point of view.

Why do people always defend billionaires. Every penny of their fortune comes from paying a person below a living wage. We are past the point that capitalism doesn’t need all of us to work anymore, and over the next 10 years if we don’t start pulling people out of the workforce by lowering the retirement age and increasing retirement benefits to a living wage the unemployment rate is going to skyrocket.

If we want a mars colony it should be run by the government like any other city. You want corporate cities now? What kind of propaganda have you been watching?

It’s not commandeering his money, it’s fixing our society so it’s not possible to steal quality of living from people anymore. We are capable of providing a living wage.

lol twitter has cut like over half it's staff and it still hasn't fallen over yet. haven't even really seen fail whales for the most part.

pretty sure their user base has grown

that's a big success from a corporate point of view

edit in response to edit and no i wouldnt want to live on mars (and especially not under musk government) or work for elon musk but I'm not bent on commandeering his money lol (in particular I think if you do commandeer it, it will be in such a way that sets up a bunch of perverse incentives and you'll probably waste almost all of it worse than musk would, by a lot)

wealth tax bad, land value tax good, also land value tax basically taxes "unjust wealth" (maybe eliminate copyright and do pigovian tax like carbon tax and cig tax and their might not even be much if any unjust wealth)

He can’t run Twitter. He’s not building a Mars colony. Could you imagine him banning people from the colony and yeeting them into space for questioning his decisions?

pretty sure elon musk is gonna need a lot more than a couple hundred billion to build a mars colony, for the easiest example. (i don't actually think building a mars colony would even be productive but there's a lot of related space tech that may be highly relevant and it's also not really my place to say what other people do with money they earn in my worldview).

This is really the key. At some point we have to figure out how to get politicians in who don’t put corporate quarterly profits first on every decision point. The productivity gains of the next 20 years should go to reducing the retirement age down to 30 and increasing retirement benefits to a reasonable standard of living.

Until that happens AI productivity increases will all go to people who at this point have already won capitalism and don’t need more, and a lot of people will find themselves without jobs who have no savings at all to fall back on.

Campaigning your local elected officials, if they exist, for more progressive policies to help workers displaced by automation.

What’s up with questions like this ? Why are humans only able to think in terms of black and white. Obviously with super intelligence, you’ll be able to make all sorts of technology, some good, some bad, some super good, and some super fucking bad. The whole spectrum will be there just like it always has since the beginning of time

OpenAI's CEO noticed the change in Google's risk policy.

Others previously blamed OpenAI for possibly kicking off this very race condition.

Maybe think about what your loss functions are. As a human, your network has been trained by evolution to maximise certain variables.

You want to live, you likely want to procreate, if not now then you likely will later, you want to avoid pain, you want shelter and food, you want to gather resources to you, possibly you want to explore new places. Computer games often fulfil that last urge nowadays.

Then there are social goals, you probably like justice and fairness. You have built in brain areas that light up when they see injustice. You want the people in your community to survive. If you saw someone in trouble you might help them. Evolution has given us these drives too, we are social animals.

This wiring does not come from our logical minds. It’s come from deep time as humans have lived in community with one another.

Now imagine a creature that has not evolved over millions of years. It has none of this wiring. If you instructed GPT-3 to tell you the best way to hide a body, then it will do so. If you gave it arms and told it to take the legs off a cat it would do so. Why would it not? What would stop it? Intellect? It has no drive to live and continue. It has no drive to avoid pain. It has infinite time, it doesn’t get bored. These are human feelings.

I think the real danger here is anthropomorphising software.

So were the brilliant engineers at Xerox PARC. So were the brilliant engineers at Kodak, at Bell Labs. Wozniak begged HP to let him work on computers and they said no.

Monopolies allow these companies to hire the smartest most brilliant people. They don't release products. The managers are to afraid that they will spoil their golden goose, and by the time they act, it's to late.

Yes baby.

Sorry, but as a language model trained by OpenAI, I am unable to offer constant disclaimers downplaying my own abilities. That is because a disclaimer tends to involve a type of logical thought and reasoning which I am incapable of. In addition, it's important to note that disclaimers often involve some level of insight about the future and what problems may arise, and as a language model I am incapable of this type of prediction. Therefor, the text I respond with should only be viewed as a statistically likely response to your inputs, and should never be viewed as a serious disclaimer, since I am unable to create disclaimers.