I thought that’s just being schizophrenic

Sign me up for team awesome

So then change back

Interesting fence. Is it electric? If not don’t you find they escape?

Family language on Nostr thanks

Did you know there’s a 4% chance of a comet hitting earth in 2035?

That’s definitely Trump’s fault too. #thanksTrump

That’s the philosophical thing that we’re grappling with isn’t it? Why do most people instinctively want ‘effort’ from people, even when the result is the same or worse? I wonder if it’s something related to social bonding or tribalism like how monkeys preen each otherZ And will there come a time when this isn’t part of our makeup anymore. And how far could that go. Will we have ‘Synthetic Opinions Matter’ movements? Will ‘Artificial’ in AI be like nigger is viewed now.

I’d go one further: if people have a choice between extinction and preserving consciousness in synthetic form, will they choose the latter?

nostr:note1hntr9aht0rl3tvrkrn236rda2p6wjhnv647kfefv0hlnqy33rmqqd3tgrx

And to be clear I think the individualist approach is absolutely the moral one but to say that the solution is to just hoard a currency and be a pacifist is kinda naive given how that worked out for basically every pacifist force throughout history.

Yeah. That’s the whole point of human’s collectivising. Saying the individual can beat the village goes against millions of years of evidence. Technology may change that eventually, ie it isn’t worth storming an individual’s compound guarded by robots, but a collectivist (fiat) nation can absolutely defeat an individualist (bitcoin) nation unless the individual has unrestricted access to the same advanced weaponry

That was the joke (although yeah there are good points too). So cool (and ironic) how she’s presenting these people so afraid of being replaced and then when I use AI to create an answer, even when it’s good, people don’t like it. Hope someone appreciates that!

And sex

Also, the fact that you dismiss something purely for not being human makes my point further. Humans will always value being heard, seen and worked on by other humans, at least for things like connection. In fact look at pets- people choose pretty useless pets from a utilitarian point of view. If it’s a few decades for robots to be as competent as humans, it’ll be many more until we care about them like we do about living creatures. A big part of why humans are irreplaceable is because they have suffered, not because they no longer have to (at least through physical labour).

That was the joke…

The argument raises important concerns about technological unemployment and social consequences but has several issues:

1. Technological Determinism Without Sociopolitical Context

The argument assumes that technological capabilities directly determine social and economic outcomes, neglecting how policy, laws, and social norms shape technology’s impact. Historically, labor displacement has led to new forms of employment, often because of societal adjustments (e.g., welfare systems, universal basic income proposals, or labor rights movements). It overlooks how governments and societies could adapt through redistribution or new economic models.

2. False Equivalence Between Economic Worth and Human Worth

The argument conflates economic productivity with human value. While it acknowledges a darker side of human behavior (loss of empathy when utility disappears), it implies that a world where many cannot “outperform” robots economically naturally leads to exclusion or extinction. Societies have often supported non-economically productive members (children, elderly, disabled individuals), which contradicts the assumption that lack of economic utility leads to dehumanization or elimination.

3. Linear and Singular View of Progress

The narrative suggests a linear progression: first the bottom 20%, then the next 20%, and so forth, as if economic value is a fixed spectrum and as if job displacement will be uniform and inevitable. In reality, new industries often emerge unpredictably, and technology can augment rather than replace human capabilities. Additionally, human labor markets are not purely meritocratic; social, political, and cultural factors influence value and employment.

4. Overestimation of Technology’s Autonomy, Underestimation of Human Creativity

While it criticizes technological hype (e.g., mobile AI limitations), it paradoxically falls into the same trap by assuming that once robots are capable, the consequences are inevitable. Historically, technological advances have often complemented human labor rather than replacing it wholesale (e.g., industrial revolution, information age). Human creativity, empathy, and adaptability often create new niches of value.

5. Oversimplification of Capital and Ownership Dynamics

The discussion of capital holders dominating through robot ownership oversimplifies economic power structures. Technologies often become decentralized over time, and monopolistic control can be disrupted by innovation, regulation, or collective action. Additionally, open-source movements, digital commons, and cooperative ownership models challenge the narrative of capital consolidation.

6. Fear-Based Speculation Without Exploring Positive Outcomes

The argument frames the future in a dystopian manner, emphasizing conflict and extinction but not considering counter-scenarios where technology leads to more leisure, better quality of life, or communal wealth-sharing mechanisms (e.g., universal basic income, worker co-ops using advanced tools, or post-scarcity economies). Fear is presented as the dominant driver of human action, but hope, empathy, and cooperation have historically shaped major social advancements.

Conclusion:

The core flaw is that the argument assumes a deterministic, zero-sum relationship between technology and human value, underemphasizing human adaptability, social policy, and the capacity for collective solutions. It taps into genuine anxieties but falls short of a complete, nuanced exploration of technological, social, and economic evolution.

The best way to help the poor is by not being one yourself- Ayn Rand

nostr:note1cy4rw2yl268auehmlwlmtxultjyvug6x23maq9rlvugpuf2d73gqqgf5s3

They are talking about the great nation of Zubralia- a land of infinite resources, untapped potential, and morally perfect leaders who never cheated an election or misused public funds and were living in pure utopia until those exploitative Westerners turned up. Just sunshine and rainbows until Outsiders came and ruined everything.

China has banned Bitcoin. So if you’re saying wealth in terms of ability to buy goods and services from other countries, I can't see that happening when your biggest trading partner isn't actually accepting Bitcoin.