Well do you have counterarguments? Perhaps many people disagreed but simply didn’t know how to refute the points.

With which everyone agreed, of course.

Rich people don't leave their money in banks, or very little of it as a percentage, and SVB's failure was not the result of poor people.

Imagine if earth got twice as much habitable land and resources suddenly, you wouldn't expect this to make rich people lose all their wealth. The discovery of the new world didn't make Europe's Kings get poor.

Neither would reducing the population necessarily do that. Anyway, it doesn't so much matter what would happen as what they expect to happen,

>In this case, with a non-human CEO that does not absorb profits, the workers in general would earn much more money...

COUGH communism COUGH

This is the part of AI I can get behind, it's replacing an on average overpaid role and providing a guiding hand. It's not eliminating shitloads of jobs, it's just directing the company on what they need to do.

>This is not true at all in America. Income has no predictive value on voting,

Also not true. What you are seeing is the post-Reagan Democratic Party making a play for the upper-middle class/petit bourgeoisie at the cost of antagonizing their working class voting base.

But if you drill down into the details, income correlates strongly with voting preference, especially if it's tied to some other factor. Income and gender by themselves don't explain much, but income plus gender says a LOT.

Ultimately, the liberals and the fascists report to the same shared paymasters.

It's not really a hot take it's just empirically true. You can look up Thomas Piketty Brahmin Left vs Merchant Right.

Pron mostly.

A while :

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Freib7TX0AI_G_1?format=jpg&name=small

There was already a post yesterday on why those ideas wouldn’t happen.

The nifty thing about AI, automation, and advances in small drone technology is that you might not need the knowing cooperation of any other human to have automated factories making billions off tiny poison carrying drones.

One rich nutter could eliminate everyone or most people or all but a bunch of women in the theory that they will repopulate the world with him.

Because you are feeling nervous about the popular anti-inequality sentiments of the late 2030's and after that big monopoly crackdown last year you realise that the private wealth of trillionaiers is going to be American's next target.

oh, yeah, I've played with it for coding and it told me it did things it did not do, and couldn't read the code it produced after, so there's no good way to 'correct' it.

It spits out lots of 'work', but it's not always accurate and people who are used to computers always being correct are going to have to get used to the fact that this is really more like having a personal assistant.

Sure, they're reasonably bright and eager, but sometimes wrong.

I don't think GPT is leading directly to AGI, or anything, but a tool like this, even when sometimes wrong, is still going to be an extremely powerful tool.

When you see GPT passing law exams and things like that, you can see it's not getting perfect scores, but it's still probably more likely to get you the right example of case law than a first year paralegal, and it does it instantly.

Also, in 4 months, it's basically become accurate the way you'd expect a human to improve on things like the bar exam in 4 years of study.

It's a different kind of computing platform, and people don't know quite how to take it yet. Especially people used to the idea that computers never make mistakes.

But then the money would be in the bank, and the bank's assets would depreciate in the same way, and he could lose every single cent. Just look at SVB.

AKA we have to meet this fate because we haven't met aliens

(part of the problem I've always had with that interpretation of the Fermi Paradox)

I like it, a hot take but I like it

Fermi paradox solution?

He could sell off his shares to lock in his wealth, then help cull the poor.

The point is how the rich might be able to get rid of the poor. So presumably not by sharing such medical advancements either. Also, the hypothetical kill-off of the poor could proceed the discovery of any such medical discoveries.

>Rich people do not see themselves as a collective in-group,

No, they totally do. They just try to downplay that when talking to outsiders.

This is not true at all in America. Income has no predictive value on voting, many billionaires vote left and right, many impoverished people vote left and right.

The stratification is based on educational level, which is why you see highly educated middle class people being extremely left and high school graduate business owners going extremely right

I don't understand the point of #6? Fascism is a death cult. The end result of fascism is the death of all the fascists, too. That's expected.

Edit: Or wait, are you pointing out that fascism is a death cult? I can't tell. It just feels like your pointing out the next step of the fascists' plans.

Yep when they start putting these robots out there, AIs are gonna be so well trained that i doubt people will still say robots are slower than humans.

a good enough AI could make them like the Illuminati with full control and little trace to be found

Coming next : AIs actually explaining humans how to be happy through being gentle, sharing and loving, because their superior intelligence reached that conclusion.