Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)ZY
Posts
0
Comments
86
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • i dont think you are gonna read any of this

    THINK AGAIN YA DAM LIB XD

    In all seriousness though, I can understand your desire for utopia and for technology to solve all our problems (I desire those things too!), but I think people generally view those two desires as naive. The world's problems usually don't have simple solutions, AI is still somewhat of a new area of research with its own potential dangers, and putting all your stock into AI solving our problems ignores the very real solutions that could be implemented sooner rather than later.

    But don't beat yourself up too much over meaningless internet points, learn about what you're interested in more! If AI is your cup of tea and you want to learn more about the potential issues with creating super powerful AI, I can strongly recommend the channel "Robert Moses AI Safety". Particularly his videos about The Orthogonality Thesis and Mesa-Optimizers.

  • This is pretty standard left wing stuff, tankie garbage would be like: "we need to create a dictatorship of the proletariat to prevent climate change"

    Edit: well maybe it might be a little bit tankie from the last bit

  • Political conservatism obeys none of the other dictionary definitions. It's just a label. It's the label chosen by generations of influential public figures whose general philosophy is "Well someone has to be the king."

    Isn't this kinda true of most politically-associated labels? Communism, socialism, capitalism, egalitarianism, progressivism... they can all be thought of as general ideas, but when someone actually uses them, they could be referring to a more specific concept, or twisting the idea a bit, or referring to a specific person's definition of the idea and its kinda hard to know how to interpret it...

  • Hmmm, I guess I don't like the reasoning "extreme version of complicated idea is bad, therefore the idea is bad in general". Like its fine to dislike an idea's extremes, but it would be disingenuous to also dismiss its more moderate forms.

  • The mechanistic reasoning might be plausible, but is there any actual examples of a modern capitalist society regressing back to some form of feudalism to any significant degree?

    The point where I'd be worried is when a single company is the majority of a country's GDP or has complete control over the government. The only examples I can think of that even get close to these possibilities are South Korea's Chaebols or Hong Kong's corporate voting block.

  • What about capitalism requires infinite growth? And what does it require infinite growth in? What happens when growth stagnates in a capitalist system? Does it suddenly not become capitalist anymore?

  • So you are defining an ambiguous term in order to better criticise it? That makes sense, but it might not convince people who have different definitions 🤔

    Like I for example would consider a Co-Op where the employees own the company / have voting power over how its run to be a part of a capitalist system, hell, I'd even consider someone who makes a living as an artist where they own all their tools to be a part of a capitalist system... although I suppose that could also be considered socialist to some degree because the artist "owns" the means of production?

    These definitions are kind of difficult to use...