I mean, it's pretty blatant we already live under a totalitarian society. Corporations run and own absolutely everything and we have no sway over what they do or how they are organised, Mircosoft hold all the keys here and like you said they get to decide how speech is decided and thats final as far as they are concerned. They aren't doing it to protect anyone, they just want to keep shareholders and that means avoiding their cutting-edge tech saying some weird shit that might scare away sponsors and a bigger userbase. They aren't protecting anyone, just their bottom line.

We have decent living conditions in the West and sometimes they feel generous enough for us to have a bit of a say in what candidates from the hugely privately funded parties - who align economically - get to hold positions. But otherwise we don't get to decide who runs the banks, the corporations, the privately owned energy sectors, the military and so on. We have no say in any of it and the vast majority of wealth and power belong to a relatively tiny portion of the population.

I think the popping out a vagina thing is more size restricting.

Lol what? That made zero sense

Government has the ability right now to create government isps and give everyone free high speed internet, but they won’t because they’re corrupt.

Advocating for businesses to pay fees to use the internet is exactly the opposite point I was making

What's happening??

> Since it puts pressures on productivity. Adapt or die.

So putting a barrier to entry will cause more pressure on an already difficult industry to be in?

>Please provide it

It's currently 9% of tax revenue.

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/government-revenue/

That money is being spent elsewhere. The money you are receiving benefits from is from property taxes, gas tax, sin taxes, or other specific taxes like telephone tax. Sooo I backed up my claim and yet you have not.

>Much stronger taxation is the way to go, encouraging faster automation rather than discouraging it.

Back it up. Where and why do you think this?

I feel like embracing it the most the fastest might not be sustainable long term. Definitely would suck falling behind significantly though.

Thing is: it has no agency, and it's limited in output.

taxing them more is good. but not based on number of robots.

>Then how is more taxes encouraging faster automation?

Since it puts pressures on productivity. Adapt or die.

>You're not going to see any of it.

I'm sure you have strong evidence to back this up. Please do provide it.

Good. Copyright is for humans, not machines.

Will be interesting when big brands with rooms full of lawyers make their cases as to why they should be able to copyright AI-generated images. This isn't over by a long shot.

> Much stronger taxation is the way to go, encouraging faster automation rather than discouraging it.

Then how is more taxes encouraging faster automation? Why is "much stronger taxation" the solution to you? You're not going to see any of it.

Like I said above, maybe I didn’t word that part well enough. You can check out my reply there for more detail.

What wolfram believes however is definitely not essentialist fluff. He also absolutely doesn’t believe that humans are unique or special in any way. In fact, he thinks nothing is special at all but that everything is subjective. I suggest you read the article before you dismiss it.

Bernie needs to retire. This would kill innovation, and put the US at a major disadvantage.

Toolformer can do this

I perhaps didn’t word that part very well, so would like to clarify what I meant. The entire point of Wolfram’s scientific endeavor hinges on the assumption that existence is a computational construct which allows for everything to exist. Not everything humanly imaginable, but literally everything. He posits that in this boundless computational space, every subjective observer and their perspective occupies a distinct place.

From our set of human coordinates, we essentially have vantage points into our own subjective reality. The perspective we have - or any subjective observer has - is computationally reducible; in the sense that by say coming up with fundamental laws of physics, or the language of mathematics we are actively reducing our experience of reality to formulas. These formulas are useful but only in time and from our perspective of reality.

The broader reality of everything computationally available exists, but in order to take place it needs to be computed. It can’t be reduced to mere formulas. The universe essentially has to go through each step of every available computation to get to anywhere it gets.

Evolution of living things on earth is one such process, humans building robots is another, so and and so forth. I’m not saying that humans are unique or only we’re conscious or anything like that. I’m also not saying machines can’t be intelligent, they already are. I’m just saying a neural net’s position in the ultimate computational coordinate system will undoubtedly be unfathomable to us.

Thus, extending the capability of machines as tools humans use doesn’t involve a directly traceable path to a machine super-intelligence that has any relevance in human affairs.

Can we build a thing that’s super fluent in human languages and has access to all human computational tools? Yes. Would that be an amazing, world-altering technology? Also yes. But it having wants and needs and desires and goals; concepts only existing in the coordinate space humans and other life on earth possess, that I find unlikely. Maybe the machine is conscious, perhaps an electron also is. But there’s absolutely no reason to believe it will materialize as a sort of superhuman being.

The only impossible thing is it not happening.

You mean the import of machine produced goods?
Because tools are going to be developed elsewhere, the science isn't exactly top secret.
There might be some asymmetry for some time but other economies are going to catch up.

That is the opposite of trickle down economics, lol.

More than just that. It's also imagination. Curiosity. Dreams. Desire. Those are some of the defining factors of consciousness.

150 is in the 99.9 percentile... someone with a higher IQ than me should know not to use something anecdotal like feelings to judge how smart they are relative to other people and should use the bell curve and stats instead.

[removed]

Well we missed our chance to tax companies for developing business models based on the internet, and we funded that invention.

Seems reasonable to me. But I’m happy just to start charging google, Amazon, and Facebook transaction feeds instead. No reason to enable these corporate welfare moms.

> Yes. Much stronger taxation is the way to go,

Is this the trickle-down economics I hear about? You think these taxes will trickle down to you?

And absolutely no crumpets.

Unlikely a solution to the Fermi paradox. I and many other people would never use VR, so it is unlikely that 100% of an alien population would use VR unless it was imposed on them by force.