watwut

Those were told "find another job" and in fact they were able to find different jobs.

AI companies are gleefully bragging and "making humans obsolete", "permanent underclass" and 40% unemployment rates they plan to create.

They pushed to replace people years BEFORE their technology even can produce that work.

So, you know, it is not the same. But also in fact, clerks did disliked when occasionally arrogant claimed to replace them while pushing unfinished software that dont quite work yet.

They cant make regulations. They have only limited political power, Karp and Thiel certainly have more.

So, what you say amounts to "it is true, but do nothing at all". What they do is "do the thing we can do".

You, CEOs and this crowd all agree. It ia just that some think it is a good thing (CEOs), anything except impossible is pointless (you).

We should call data centers what they actually are: surveillance centers designed to put us all in a digital prison by 2030

I mean, isnt that what Karp, Thiel are openly saying and one of the things Antropic doom trolls about?

There was an amusing story about how data center protestors had to organize expensive bus trips to get the protesters out to the data center site because it was so remote.

How did they get in?

Now it's an AI mistake, and people HATE AI mistakes. Even if the number of AI mistakes is fewer than the human mistakes.

I dont know. We have this hype cycle where ai or cars are talked about flawless or so much better then people ... years before they actually are. And then in each time we find that nah, they were not but now this time they certainly are.

And each time I read on HN about how people expect so much better from tech then from people. And usually, when you look at it, the opposite is true. Where human get criticised, tech gets tripple benefit of doubt.

It does not seem so to me. There does not seem genuine wish for protection from danger as much as genuine wish to see the leader to be cruel to others or take advantage as others.

I would argue that their situation straightforwardly sux. And no amount of gadgets, fridge connected with wifi, etc etc will really unsux it.

If worse comes to worst, you can move another hour or two away from the big city.

I would loose a job, easy access to friends, access family nearby in the process. All those matter, I value all three.

Meanwhile, if I dont buy latest toy, whether phone or sports equipment or netflix subscription, I adapt and dont care in 3 days.

The articles with similar claim I have seen attributed disproportional value to, basically, stupid crap: better phone, more entertainment (streaming movies), cloth I buy once in a while, cheaper gym nearby, some or other luxury I would miss for roughly 3 months and then forgot.

And that leads us to "only housing has gotten more expensive relative to income" - precarity does matter. If I am one sickness or two paychecks from not being able to pay rent, it causes a lot more actual real material insecurity then "having slower phone while everybody else has equally slow phone".

Likewise, if you have trouble to find a job, fear of loosing it makes you work 12 hours a day in a job you hate, it affects you a lot more then whether you can stream movies.

What's your mental model for bigger company = worse movies?

Monopoly => lack of competition => enshittification and abuse.

Imagine the extreme where every movie was owned by a different owner. Netflix would not be able to license content effectively.

As much as I like Netflix, permanent ownership of movies and series on my side, after one time payment would be hugely desirable. Overall, I dont like this "you just rent catalogues you have no control over" development is all that great.

I dont think anything you wrote in that paragraph has anything to do with actual public anger as it exists. It is just Heritage think tank advancing their authoritarian dictatorship agenda yet again, this time more openly. As far as they are concerned, anyone left to them speaking is a grave danger to the republic, attack on their right to be supported all the time and must be punished. They dont ask for similar laws in relation to far right, despite the fact it is more violent.

There is a lot of public anger tho. Facebook and Twitter are working overtime to stroke it. Heritage loves it as long as it ends up being in MAGA colors.

Fertility is going down was my answer to your "why would anyone take such a burden" question. The answer is, people largely don't.

I described how experience of motherhood was and its real impact on people. I did experienced some of that, I heard real life women talk about these and I have seen sociological studies confirming the same. For example, being stay at home mom is one risk factor for alcoholism. Social isolation is super common.

I described it only because you kept trying to frame the above issues as "status seeking", being the coolest or in grand dreams I just cant relate to. But that is not what women decide on when they decide between having a child or having another child. These down to earth basic impacts are the reason to say "nope, not another one".

Although you seem to make you case a bit too extremely, as having two or three children doesn't entirely destroy free time and social life

I described what experience of having one or two children is. All those are real effects on women and if they trust you a little, they openly talk about them.

nor makes her powerless in case of abusive relationships.

Specifically, yes, it makes you a lot more vulnerable. You are now forever tied to the dad, you have harder time to keep good job (so more dependent financially) and yes, the abuse tend to escalate.

in fact you have just described a woman with children as isolated, with reduced social skills, boring, helpless in the face of abuse.

Yes that is the worry. The social isolation is very real and painful. The reduction on social skills is observed phenomenon and something openly talked about. And more helplessness is one of the consequences of having children (especially if with wrong person).

Can you name a socially positive trait you attribute to a mother that is dedicated to growing her children?

I did not said THEY are bad. I said these are impacts and consequences of being mother dedicated to growing her children. So, the positive trait is that they suffer the above for the sake of kids. You are the one implicitly blaming them for natural consequences of the situation.

And otherwise, why would anyone take such a burden?

Fertility is going down.

Authoritarian are not high trust. And people who call for authoritarian societies are not calling for high trust. They call for control and subjugation.

It is not about percentage of the population, but about whether the bad actor rise to the top.

The other problem you have is that a lot of crime tends to be financially rewarding, so if left unchecked it will tend to grow over time as the criminals get richer and expand their operations.

It already happened. The president, Miller, Karp, Thiel, Zuckerberg, Musk, hell the company named Flock are all bad actors who got richer over time and expanded their operations.

Anthropic and OpenAI talk about humans being obsolete and about replacing human workers too.

Permanent underclass is expression for that.

Paid servitude and working for salary are two massively different things. And over the course of history, free men worked for salaries, were free, were happy and it was not the same thing as being a slave.

Iran is the norm now? And the USA self reporting about their own civilian victims (or military victims) is somehow to be trusted?

USA is attacking desalination plants and civilian infrastructure. It was doing it in the first stage of the war and led with those attacks in the second.

USA is killing fishermen in pacific. Just to make Hegseth feel like manly man. USA is engineering human catastrophe in Cuba. And it is supporting genocide in Gaza.

that depends on what your dreams and hopes are, and what you think are valuable goals to pursue, and ultimately your idea of a worthy life.

You are talking about grand ideas here, but I do not mean like that at all. I mean things like "being able to have time to read a book I like or being able to watch tv series". Or, "being able to leave it the relationship gets abusive". Or, "having a little thing of my own I created". Or like "not loosing all my interests and hobbies, being able to keep at least some of them". Or like, "having an hour of uninterrupted time".

I did not mentioned "coolest guy at the party". In relations to moms, we are talking about "not being completely isolated from society for prolonged time" or "being able to socialize often enough to not loose social skills" or "just going to a party once in a while". Or "being able to keep a semi interesting job". Or just "have a topic to talk about, so that the party does not consists of me sitting there having nothing to say feeling like I dont belong".

A lot of those are things that other people don't even see and have no way to judge. They are things you are taking as granted, but if you have kids, you are at risk of loosing those.

f Anthropic doesn't make money because of distillation attacks, how would they convince investors to invest in them,

I dont care if that company dies. Or if OpenAI dies. I dont mind investors investing into other things either.

You dont need large grass field to kick the ball, play with the ball and play soccer. Poor kids worldwide do it on whatever is available around - including streets themselves. Backyard, driveway, classroom during the break.

Soccer became so popular precisedly because if you buy the ball, you can find some place to kick it at.

Better status is misleading label for "I will have more time for myself and things I like, for own dreams and hopes, I will be able to be more independent" and "my life wont be completely ruled by others needs with no reward" and so on.

Status is only loosely related to what those people want. It just just one of many aspects.

Not based on reporting. She is fully controlled by Rubio.

How could such a thing possibly prove that "USA is sensitive to civilian deaths"?

USA is just not sensitive to that. It is sensitive to lives of own soldiers, very much.

Also USA is very sensitive about the other side's civilian deaths.

Its literally bragging about the oposite while intentionally killing civilians.

Yes, but Maduro is not. His former right hand is in charge and Rubio is controlling her. It was not regime change, but an internal coup helped with foreign soldiers.

New leader is equally oppressive, but this time guided by American admin.

You mean the job of terrorizimg the communities? ICE is law breaking unaccountable violent group. Yes, it is ok to want them to stop. It is proper role of government to protect rights of people and to stop roque agencies.

And yes, conservatives do want the government to fail. They are actively working on it.

Third, I did not said congress is "corrupt". As of now, the most corrupt are president, those around him and supreme court. Republicans in congress are acting in bad faith.

We have the best Congress money can buy

That is not true? It is not the best, the money were used to make it dysfunctional. The congressional dysfunction is not due to bureaucracy. Conservative actors who want the government to fail, so they intentionally changed the rules so that it cant fix the issues.

Of course, congress can not do much in a two party system where one party is ideologically dedicated to obstruction and destruction. But, the right place to complain about that are conservatives, not the abstract government.

This has it other way round. The ones who will be hit by climate change the worst are the poor. It wont be "the next century" either. They also can not do all that much about it.

The ones who actively prevent collective measures to stop the climate change are the richest of the rich. And they also spend pretty significant money on lies and propaganda designed to prevent collective work against climate change.

They notified about contamination first, FDA was late to the party. They did not needed to clear check or do anything if they wanted to hide issues.