So basically the definition of "eugenics" is a lot more vague than we realize and we should make sure to differentiate between state-mandated eugenics and decision-making regarding fertilization. Interesting read, it convinced me that siblings should be able to legally have babies, which I don't think was the goal, but they seem to have inadvertently made some compelling arguments for it.

One suggestion that comes to mind is to add a "comedy" community, if that's possible. A lot of the most popular stuff on Twitter is just funny and doesn't have to do with any niche interests.

Love Death and Robots has an episode made with this style I believe. Episode 3, The Witness.

Incorrect. AI can definitely be biased. Where do you think the data that it's trained on comes from? Another AI? No, it comes from people. An AI is only as accurate as its training data.

For example, a famous example would be that AIs often come to the conclusion that black Americans are more healthy than other Americans and thus do not need as much assistance with their health. In reality, the opposite is true, but the AI doesn't realize that because it's just looking at the data given to it. That data shows that black Americans are less likely to go to the hospital, so the AI assumes that this is because there is nothing wrong with them. In reality, most humans would recognize that this is because black Americans are more likely to be poor, and can't afford to go to the hospital as frequently.

A few more examples that could happen: an AI image-generation program might be more likely to draw teachers as female, since that would be what most of the training data depicted. An AI facial recognition system might be less accurate at identifying hispanic people by their facial features because less images of hispanic people were included in the training data. An AI that suggests recommended prison sentences might give harsher sentences to black people because it was trained using previous decisions made by human judges, who tend to give harsher sentences to black people.

TL;DR: AI technology doesn't exist in a vacuum. People have biases, so AIs also have biases. AIs can have less bias if you're smart about what training data you use and what information you hide from the AI.

Nobody can predict the future. Anybody who tells you they can is just trying to get you to give them money.

With that being said, it seems unlikely (but not impossible) to me that NFTs will be the standard means of tracking digital ownership. The only real use case that I can see for NFTs would be tracking digital art in a metaverse-esque space, but realistically that type of space would be owned and operated by corporations. Corporations prefer to control things themselves, using blockchain technologies would limit the amount of control that they have over the space's economy, so I doubt they would use NFTs.

Other than that, I couldn't really imagine any situation where I would need to use a decentralized system in order to prove that I own a copy of a digital art piece other than bragging rights, but that seems like something only the very wealthy would engage in.