on waterwars

or, what i dont understand about economics apparently and someone please explain it to me, the rules of how this works actually

full disclosure: one of my brother's favorite shows is american greed. his second fav is the men who built america. so yea ive seen some episodes with him about the founding of chocolate chip cookies and robber barons, but barely

ok,

so, speculating, ruthless moves, big risk, big reward, high stakes

that happens a lot on these shows, and sure, granted, maybe some of hyperbole for tv, but what i gleaned is that big risk justifies big payouts on the grounds of:

who put what on the line

who had the vision

who risked it

look at the payoff

why ever would i share

ok cool i get that, why would you. few men could do this. many men with the means wouldnt have. this is gambling high stakes, you won, happy hoarding.

but that also means the converse can happen

as in, the whole justification is predicated on: you get to keep yours because if you lost, the bet, it would have been only and exclusively your loss and great loss to any investors who believed in you

and so, when it comes to ai,

all i see, really, is moves to manufacture consent everywhere and that looks like loss that doesnt want to accept the loss tbqh

as in, i couldnt google search without adding -ai to make sure my search wasn't hemorrhaging water i didnt want to use in the first place but google had decided i did ~for me. now, why ever would that be?

the libertarian thing => sovereignty

the anti-vax thing => ability to opt out

well, everywhere i look, they, the ominous they, the central planners, seem to be removing and erasing our ability to opt out of ai

if this was some stellar innovation, if ai was so good it justified it's own water usage, the

cost on communities, on people, why wouldn't

it be the other way? actually this is something you need to pay $17 a month to have access to it at the cheapest bare bones level? shit, institutions are sweating how to afford access to this for their undergraduates. damn i really want to use this but i cant afford it. can't wait til i get a better paying job so i can. dream about being able to afford a higher tier. the difference is that stark and abundantly clear.

when something is good, when it makes a real difference, when it is a measurable, observable, self evident asset, you dont need a pitch, you dont need to manufacture consent, you dont give it away for free, you dont force it on people and make it hard for them to opt out.

and so, what's going on? is this the digital jab? is this internet fentanyl? get everyone hooked until they cant remember they ever wrote emails without it and ~then~ set a monthly price?

again, who would do it this way if the benefits speak for themselves? a good thing needs no public relations, needs no defense, isnt shoved into everything for free.

circling back, reprise:

~on ai~

who put what on the line

who had the vision

who risked it

look at the payoff

why ever would i share

ok cool i get that, why would you. few men could do this. many men with the means wouldnt have. this is gambling high stakes, you won, happy hoarding.

but that also means the converse can happen

as in, the whole justification is predicated on: you get to keep yours because if you lost, the bet, it would have been only and exclusively your loss and great loss to any investors who believed in you.

is that actual?

are those the actual rules?

or, do these losses get socialized every single time but the wins never are.