nickwitha_k (he/him)

Your take is illogical, unless you are arguing for some sort of pre industrial communism which is never going to happen because I think any sane person can agree that technology has vastly improved our lives. It has introduced pains sure, but everything is a process.

That’s quite a leap. Not all technology is worthwhile or improves the overall human experience. Are you getting there by assuming that the world is black and white; embracing all technology or rejecting all technology? If so, I would recommend re-evaluation of such assumptions because they do not hold up to reality.

Oh and speaking of computers did computers and automated production lines destroy the ability for people to make a living?

Were they developed and pushed for that explicit reason? No. LLMs are. The only reason that they receive as much funding as they do is that billionaires want to keep everything for themselves, end any democratic rule, and indirectly (and sometimes directly) cause near extinction-level deaths, so that there are fewer people to resist the new feudalism that they want. It sounds insane but it is literally what a number of tech billionaires have stated.

Maybe temporarily and then new jobs popped up.

Not this time. As many at the Church of Accelerationism fail to see, we’re at a point where there are practically no social safety nets left (at least in the US), which has not been the case in over a century, and people are actively dying because of anthropogenic climate, which is something that has never happened in recorded history. When people lost jobs before, they could at least get training or some other path that would allow them to make a living.

Now, we’re at record levels of homelessness too. This isn’t going to result in people magically gaining class consciousness. People are just going to die miseable, preventable deaths.

But I want to understand exactly where you are coming from, like do you think that we should stop all technological progress and simply maintain our civilization in stasis or roll it back to some other time or what?

Ok. Yes. It does appear that you are figuring a black and white world view where all technology is “progress” and all implements of technology are “tools” with no other classification or differentiation on their value to the species or consideration for how they are implemented. Again, I would recommend reflection as this view does not mesh well with observable reality.

Someone else already made the apt comparison between this wave of AI tech with nuclear weapons. Another good comparison would be phosgene gas. When it was first mass produced, it was used only for mass murder (as the current LLMs’ financial supports desire them to be used) only the greater part of a century later did the gas get used for something beneficial to humanity, namely doping semiconductors however, its production and use is still very dangerous to people and the environment.

I’m addition to all of this, it really appears that you fail to acknowledge the danger that accelerating the loss of the ability of the planet to sustain human life poses. Again, for emphasis, I’ll state: AI is not going to save us from this. The actions required are already known - it won’t help us to find them. The technology is being used, nearly exclusively to worsen human life, make genocide more efficient, and increase the rate of poverty, while accelerating global climate change. It provides no net value to humanity in the implementations that are funded. The only emancipation that it is doing is emancipating people from living.

This. The burden of proof is on the extraordinary claim that LLMs are anything remotely like consciousness.

Can you?

Sure. Though you really ought to provide a shred of evidence to support your extraordinary claims.

• https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.10571
• https://arxiv.org/html/2411.15862v1
• https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-digital-self/202410/the-truth-about-llms-and-their-evolving-capabilities
• https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.08955
• https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.05229

And from this point forward, I will not be accepting the unreasonable shift of the burden of proof that AI cultists insist on. Artificial intelligence is something that is new in the history of humanity. Claims that it does anything more than fool people into believing it possesses consciousness, human-like cognition, etc are the extraordinary ones and must be backed with substantial evidence.

That’s…a take. And clearly not sounding like a cultist at all. /S

Giving corpos free reign to exploit whatever they want has never resulted in positive things, generally, just bloodshed and suffering. Pretending that flagrant violation of IP when done to train models is ok doesn’t do much for big companies but it does obliterate individuals ability to support themselves. This is the only reason that this environmentally disasterous and unprofitable tech has been so heavily embraced; to be used as a tool of exploitation.

AI is not going to save anyone. It is not going to emancipate anyone. Absolutely none of the financial benefits are being shared with the working class. And, if they were, it would have little impact on LLMs’ big picture value as they are vastly accelerating the destruction of the planet’s biosphere. When that’s gone, humanity is finished.

Embracing the current forms of commercialized AI is only to the detriment of humanity and the likelihood of the creation of any artificial sentience.

So what an Ai does is the same thing as every human ever who has read/saw/listened a work and then wrote more words being influenced by that book/artwork/piece.

Nope. This has been thoroughly debunked by both neuroscientists and AI researchers. It’s nothing but hand-waiving to claim that corporate exploitation is ok because…reasons.

LLMs and similar models are literally statistical models of the data that they have been fed. They have no thought, consciousness, or creativity. They are fundamentally incapable of synthesizing anything not already existing in their dataset.

These same bunk pro-corpo-AI talking points are getting pretty old and should be allowed to retire at this point.

He’s not. The individual that you’re replying to is known for extreme bad faith and reporting people who disagree with them. I recommend ignoring.

Thanks for this, non-voters.

How will this impact the people in the Epstein Files?

Honestly, I didn’t expect great reading comprehension or other skills necessary for clerical work from people who knowingly choose to be neo-nazis.

They really need to stop the passivity in headlines related to these atrocities. “Murdered” is the word, not the passive “killed” which could imply a lack of intent.

And that was signed by Trump.

Just like last time when he caused over a million excess deaths and committed literal acts of piracy against blue states trying to get PPE.

From personal experience, frivolous denials are way up. Having to appeal regular covered care at a significantly higher rate than last year, during which I had a single appeal necessary. This isn’t just insurance fighting pharma, it’s also them trying to bleed people dry by using illegitimate denials to drive up profits.

A lot of wealthy people who went to Ivy League schools are idiots who bought their degrees.

I really think that “killed” is the wrong term. It is far too neutral. The correct word here would be “murdered”.

Sounds like the American Baptists should get on that. Then again, they believe strongly in separation of church and state.

(They’re the sect that remains of the original Triennial Convention AKA Baptists, after the Slaver Southern Baptists left because they didn’t like the idea of chattel slavery being considered wrong. Seriously. The split occurred because they refused to ordain a guy from Georgia as a missionary in 1844, on account of him being slaver trash.

The modern Southern Baptist Church, horrifyingly the largest sect of protestant Christianity in the US, is directly descended from them, and it shows.)

Nostradamus rules. Galleons. So, they’re saying that we’re bring back the age of sail.

Setup a private jet purchasing co-op?

I would say that it is cowardice to demand that others risk their lives while enjoying relative safety. And anyone attempting to force another to risk their lives for any reason is attempting to rob others of their agency over the most fundamental thing that any human has right to: their life.

Maybe it’s nice sentiment for a healthy teenager or 20-something that isn’t responsible for anyone else’s well-being. However, is that reality doesn’t fit neatly into black and white; bravery and cowardice (and glory is just a lie that the rich and old tell the young and poor to get them to fight and die for them). Sometimes the braver and more just thing is to fulfill one’s responsibilities to their spouse, children, or dependents and ensure that they are able to live to help others. And other’s have had so much taken from them by a place that asking for them to also give their life is pure sadism.

Beyond that, not everyone is physically, mentally or socially equipped for warfare, which is a good thing because humanity also needs farmers, doctors, teachers, and other builders.