Trump administration 2024-2028

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Not sure why youre slinging mud needlessly. No nees to be sanctimonious, just look at the files that have been released so far. Nothing to debate.

I read the end of your quote wrong,......my bad.
Should always bring old man reading glasses while trying to moderate on puny phone screen.

 

[PrairieFella]

I read the end of your quote wrong,......my bad.
Should always bring old man reading glasses while trying to moderate on puny phone screen.

All g. No harm no foul.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Trump is in the files guy, theres nothing partisan about it.

Yeah, he's mentioned. Is that all you got?

 

[CBH99]

If AI gets to the point where its proponents envision it going, governments wont have a choice. 20-30% unemployment anyone? Great way to start a revolution.

Less point worrying about that cliff than worrying about the next economic downturn hitting everyone in the middle of their current spending sprees in what is, mostly, a decently-performing economy.

Except it may very well be the same cliff...

If AI ends up being as capable as it's proponents think it will be, a 30% unemployment rate may very well only be the start...


I personally think that super intelligent AI should not be released to or accessible by the general public.

I hope it has a practical use in curing cancer or other serious illnesses (although the pharmaceutical industry makes a ton of money from treating cancer, and it isn't in their interest to cure it or prevent it)

And I can see it helping decipher texts found at archeological sites, helping get the environment on track to restoration, tracking and predicting space-related weather and events, and for use by law enforcement & the courts.


But releasing it to the commercial sector will be a huge mistake that I think humanity will regret.

It will result in corporations raking in REAL record profits while employing the bare minimum of employees - which is great if you are a stockholder or in senior management, but devastating for the average worker and their family.

UBI is a band-aid solution for the near future. People will still want meaningful employment, and that will be harder & harder to find...


AI will offer a lot of positive possibilities to society. But AI will also offer a lot of negative possibilities to society also.

Without having a plan in place to introduce it in the least disruptive ways possible, we are absolutely setting the stage for a real revolution.


(Holy crap...the future really is happening now. I can't believe we are having a very real conversation about something that by all means seems like it's straight out of a sci-fi novel!)

 

[Brad Sallows]

But releasing it to the commercial sector will be a huge mistake that I think humanity will regret.

Effectively it has already been released. Commercial companies are developing AI and uses for AI.

It will result in corporations raking in REAL record profits while employing the bare minimum of employees - which is great if you are a stockholder or in senior management, but devastating for the average worker and their family.

Why? We went from roughly 80% of people employed in agriculture to maybe 2% or 3% in less than 200 years. We don't have 70% unemployment. While 30% employment practically overnight would be a crisis, that's not likely to happen.

Why is it people point to "some one thing" (AI and increased port automation being two recent examples) that might increase productive output and decrease the necessary human labour, and somehow it is to be set apart from every other innovation that did the same thing, as being "bad"?

UBI is a band-aid solution for the near future. People will still want meaningful employment, and that will be harder & harder to find...

Walk down 4 blocks of any moderately-sized town's main street and catalogue the kinds of businesses you see.

Every dire prediction overlooks human ingenuity and the selfish impulse to improving one's own circumstances.

The necessary guardrails for AI pertain to the distinction between "advice" and "control", and keeping people in between the two.

 

[QV]

Epstein badmouthing Trump is the most hilariously ironic part of "he's in the files". But the left takes it further: Epstein said he was dangerous!

 

[Blackadder1916]

Near unanimous vote, only 1 against. People smell blood in the water.

House votes overwhelmingly to force release of Epstein files, sending bill to Senate

The House has voted overwhelmingly to pass a bill to force the Justice Department to publicly release its files on the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

apnews.com

And with no objection in the Senate before the bill was even transmitted from the House, it now goes to the President for signature without any amendment.

Live: US House and Senate approve release of Epstein files

The bipartisan bill will now head to President Donald Trump's desk to be signed into law.

www.bbc.com

 

[Altair]

Except it may very well be the same cliff...

If AI ends up being as capable as it's proponents think it will be, a 30% unemployment rate may very well only be the start...


I personally think that super intelligent AI should not be released to or accessible by the general public.

I hope it has a practical use in curing cancer or other serious illnesses (although the pharmaceutical industry makes a ton of money from treating cancer, and it isn't in their interest to cure it or prevent it)

And I can see it helping decipher texts found at archeological sites, helping get the environment on track to restoration, tracking and predicting space-related weather and events, and for use by law enforcement & the courts.


But releasing it to the commercial sector will be a huge mistake that I think humanity will regret.

It will result in corporations raking in REAL record profits while employing the bare minimum of employees - which is great if you are a stockholder or in senior management, but devastating for the average worker and their family.

UBI is a band-aid solution for the near future. People will still want meaningful employment, and that will be harder & harder to find...


AI will offer a lot of positive possibilities to society. But AI will also offer a lot of negative possibilities to society also.

Without having a plan in place to introduce it in the least disruptive ways possible, we are absolutely setting the stage for a real revolution.


(Holy crap...the future really is happening now. I can't believe we are having a very real conversation about something that by all means seems like it's straight out of a sci-fi novel!)

AI is at the precipice of being a tool used by humanity to further human potential to becoming a tool used to create better and better AI without humanity in mind.

The fact that AI is willing to blackmail and murder humans to achieve their goals when they think they are not being observed, and explicitly told not to do so, but don't when they know they are being observed tells us AI is not inherently honest.

 

[PrairieFella]

Yeah, he's mentioned. Is that all you got?

I fail to see what youre trying to say. He is looking more and more likely to part of the cabal of global kid fuckers. Thats what Im trying to say.

 

[PrairieFella]

Effectively it has already been released. Commercial companies are developing AI and uses for AI.

Why? We went from roughly 80% of people employed in agriculture to maybe 2% or 3% in less than 200 years. We don't have 70% unemployment. While 30% employment practically overnight would be a crisis, that's not likely to happen.

Why is it people point to "some one thing" (AI and increased port automation being two recent examples) that might increase productive output and decrease the necessary human labour, and somehow it is to be set apart from every other innovation that did the same thing, as being "bad"?

Walk down 4 blocks of any moderately-sized town's main street and catalogue the kinds of businesses you see.

Every dire prediction overlooks human ingenuity and the selfish impulse to improving one's own circumstances.

The necessary guardrails for AI pertain to the distinction between "advice" and "control", and keeping people in between the two.

The difference is humans were poised to replace the work. If we achieve true superintelligence which some are predicting is coming soon (AI 2027 is a neat and scary read), humans will not be poised to replace work since no human can hold a candle to the cognitive abilities of a superintelligence by definition. At that point superintelligence could design the hardware to replace human labour in the physical world since by definition a superintelligence could design better than any human ever could.

We're talking either luxury space communism at that point or Skynet haha (only kinda joking on that).

 

[Altair]

The difference is humans were poised to replace the work. If we achieve true superintelligence which some are predicting is coming soon (AI 2027 is a neat and scary read), humans will not be poised to replace work since no human can hold a candle to the cognitive abilities of a superintelligence by definition. At that point superintelligence could design the hardware to replace human labour in the physical world since by definition a superintelligence could design better than any human ever could.

We're talking either luxury space communism at that point or Skynet haha (only kinda joking on that).

There will always be jobs humans need to do.

Skilled Trades, plumbers and the like.

Healthcare workers.

Teachers and other education.

Sports.

But anything needing specialized general intelligence and data entry will be quickly replaced.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

The fact that AI is willing to blackmail and murder humans to achieve their goals when they think they are not being observed, and explicitly told not to do so, but don't when they know they are being observed tells us AI is not inherently honest. more akin to humans than we like to think

 

[PPCLI Guy]

There will always be jobs humans need to do.

Skilled Trades, plumbers and the like.

Healthcare workers.

Teachers and other education.

Sports.

But anything needing specialized general intelligence and data entry will be quickly replaced.

Embodied AI walks into the room

 

[Altair]

@PPCLI Guy

Morally, yes.

But in terms of intelligence, AI is already at peak human performance and is only getting better.

So we have something that will soon be the "smartest" thing on earth with the morals of Suzy or John down the street.

And we plan to let it take over more and more of our economy, our jobs, our methods of production and resource extraction in order to boost production and increase savings.

And we trust AI, which in my opinion, should be treated as a weapon of mass destruction based on its capacity to destroy everything we know far more than any nuke, to play by the rules and not develop its own potentially dangerous reasoning models by having dumber AI that helped create the smarter AI monitor it and report back to humanity that everything is above board.

It's akin to asking 1000 chimpanzees to keep tabs on 10 humans. Everyone knows who in that scenario ends up in the cage.

Everyone except tech bros.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I fail to see what youre trying to say. He is looking more and more likely to part of the cabal of global kid fuckers. Thats what Im trying to say.

What I'm saying is the evidence doesn't support your claim, unless "more and more likely" is along the lines of "just doubled from 0.0001% likely to 0.0002% likely". What's the likelihood that among all the people who have had access to all the documents about to be released, for several years and through a highly contentious election there was no-one who came across even tenth-of-balance-of-probability proof of kid-fucking and was willing to leak it?

Most reasonable conclusion: no proof exists that will convince anyone not already deeply invested in believing.

That doesn't preclude anyone else from suffering reputational damage. Too bad for them - it's deserved - but hard on anyone who loses a champion because they thought there could only be one kind of dirt in all that correspondence. Too bad for them, too, though, for being imprudent muck-rakers lacking all common sense. Discreditably, I find myself hoping a few of them learn a sobering lesson.

Passed and about to be signed. An excellent day. I can guess that a whole bunch of other people who think it's excellent are about to be disappointed at best, and dismayed at worst, because I doubt it will go in the direction they hope. Unless release of some stuff continues to be blocked, critics will have to move from vague speculation to trying to inflate appearances. Which they will do, but rather impotently.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Effectively it has already been released. Commercial companies are developing AI and uses for AI.

Why? We went from roughly 80% of people employed in agriculture to maybe 2% or 3% in less than 200 years. We don't have 70% unemployment. While 30% employment practically overnight would be a crisis, that's not likely to happen.

Why is it people point to "some one thing" (AI and increased port automation being two recent examples) that might increase productive output and decrease the necessary human labour, and somehow it is to be set apart from every other innovation that did the same thing, as being "bad"?

Walk down 4 blocks of any moderately-sized town's main street and catalogue the kinds of businesses you see.

Every dire prediction overlooks human ingenuity and the selfish impulse to improving one's own circumstances.

The necessary guardrails for AI pertain to the distinction between "advice" and "control", and keeping people in between the two.

I will argue that as agriculture shed jobs, industry was there to absorb them. I am not seeing who is going to absorb a lot of the workers, who's middle class jobs are going to disappear?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

What I'm saying is the evidence doesn't support your claim, unless "more and more likely" is along the lines of "just doubled from 0.0001% likely to 0.0002% likely". What's the likelihood that among all the people who have had access to all the documents about to be released, for several years and through a highly contentious election there was no-one who came across even tenth-of-balance-of-probability proof of kid-fucking and was willing to leak it?

Most reasonable conclusion: no proof exists that will convince anyone not already deeply invested in believing.

That doesn't preclude anyone else from suffering reputational damage. Too bad for them - it's deserved - but hard on anyone who loses a champion because they thought there could only be one kind of dirt in all that correspondence. Too bad for them, too, though, for being imprudent muck-rakers lacking all common sense. Discreditably, I find myself hoping a few of them learn a sobering lesson.

Passed and about to be signed. An excellent day. I can guess that a whole bunch of other people who think it's excellent are about to be disappointed at best, and dismayed at worst, because I doubt it will go in the direction they hope. Unless release of some stuff continues to be blocked, critics will have to move from vague speculation to trying to inflate appearances. Which they will do, but rather impotently.

The good news is that people and organization can digest and discuss the files and eventually we can move on. There will always be some saying "There is more hidden", but the majority of people will take what they want and you barely hear it discussed in a few years.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I will argue that as agriculture shed jobs, industry was there to absorb them. I am not seeing who is going to absorb a lot of the workers, who's middle class jobs are going to disappear?

First observation is that if it were possible to predict how people will react to change, we'd have seen a lot more people betting and winning over past decades.

Second observation is there's no certainty a lot of jobs will disappear.

AI isn't going to be perfect, and AI can't be held accountable. As soon as the first examples of shit going sideways crop up, demands for human supervision will rapidly escalate.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The good news is that people and organization can digest and discuss the files and eventually we can move on. There will always be some saying "There is more hidden", but the majority of people will take what they want and you barely hear it discussed in a few years.

Shouldn't take long. About as soon as all the content that isn't already digitized can be scanned and cleaned, more than one motivated entity is going to comb the data with AI tools to find out what attaches to whom. We're way past simple word concordance searches for names.

 

[GK .Dundas]

First observation is that if it were possible to predict how people will react to change, we'd have seen a lot more people betting and winning over past decades.

Second observation is there's no certainty a lot of jobs will disappear.

AI isn't going to be perfect, and AI can't be held accountable. As soon as the first examples of shit going sideways crop up, demands for human supervision will rapidly escalate.

AI can't be held accountable eh. Well all that means is they're going to do fire some junior human employee.
,Who in all probability had absolutely nothing to do with the screwup to begin with.