tiselo3655necktaicom

tiselo3655necktaicom t1_jefsp2g wrote

>a lot happens under pressure. when have govs ever been under real pressure

Why even respond? What a waste of space. Governments often just break under pressure. You live in a fantasy bubble, child.

"Hm, the government is doing badly now and when under pressure in the past, but under real pressure, im sure they'll do fine!"

You have to be a basement dwelling NEET to have this level of lack of understanding. holy shit.

−1

tiselo3655necktaicom t1_jefjz30 wrote

It doesn't make sense to use stats from prior to MODERN history and labor rights. You picking fucking 1870 shows you have an angle to begin with and are trying to distort facts. Slimy piece of shit.

"Using data by the U.S. BLS, the productivity per American worker has increased 434% since 1950. One way to look at that is that it should take less than one-quarter the work hours, or less than 10 hours per week, to afford the same standard of living as a worker in 1950 (in other words: our standard of living should be over 4 times higher than it is). Why isn’t this happening?"

The productivity-pay gap is well known, this graphic is not new.

0

tiselo3655necktaicom t1_jedcxcu wrote

I supplied multiple links to actual sources, all you can do is talk about blacksmiths and bows. This isn't D&D. Get out of the fucking basement. Come with citations.

>talking to you is like a brick wall. I'm done.

And yet, you're back with:

>you can't make a half decent argument so you result to insults and running away lmao.

hm. Where are your sources again?

5

tiselo3655necktaicom t1_jeda953 wrote

Every advance in productivity was supposed to lead to more free time. But somehow we always end up getting more productive and working the same amount or more. Where does the extra productivity go? To the owners. Why do you think that's going to change? Expert consensus is that it will not in fact change for the better. So unless you have data pointing otherwise...

There's tons of evidence of companies gearing up literal humanoid robots to replace laborers, but not a single country is even talking about labor reform or support for the soon to be billions of unemployed. There is no evidence of accommodation of AI, so there is no chance its going to be a nice, easy happy advancement. Its going to be a lot of suffering and displacement and starvation and riots.

95

tiselo3655necktaicom t1_jed9maa wrote

inventions throughout history were almost entirely made by rich people. because iterating and failing takes money. the fact that you cannot comprehend this at the outset means you are naive or a child. This is just a fact. It is self-evident. Your using high fantasy examples furthers the point that you live in...a fantasy land.

−1

tiselo3655necktaicom t1_jed7uvh wrote

>Most of human innovations were made by small groups or even a single person, without much capital. Think of the wheel, agriculture, electricity, the light bulb, the first planes, Windows OS. The list goes on and on.

You have a childlike naivety about business and live in a fantasy world.

"Data shows US inventors aren’t just good at science—they come from rich families" (2017)

"Entrepreneurs come from families with money" (2015)

3

tiselo3655necktaicom t1_je56yg3 wrote

It’s a classic geopolitical prisoners dilemma leading to just another arms race.

Authoritarian regimes all over the world are heavily incentivized to develop AI and AGI/ASI to further their control.

It’s going to happen all over the world independently of the US roughly simultaneously.

our only good option is to try to be first even though we don’t know what that entails lol. Strategic primacy is a binary: On top, or not.

14

tiselo3655necktaicom t1_jdz1y55 wrote

There is no ceiling, really, i guess. Like pain. Short of the earth exploding. As an ICU nurse I kinda had this realization on the job - there's an almost infinite number of things worse than death. So, so many circumstances. Make an advance directive. lol. At the very least, thinking in terms of "quality of life" can advance the conversation in a lot of misdirected fields.

4