For workers wondering how far artificial intelligence could go, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has a straightforward answer — AI is going to change the job market, whether people are ready for it or not. Some jobs will disappear, others will change and new ones will likely emerge. But Dimon warned that the speed of that transition could matter just as much as the technology itself.

"As a business person, my view is don't put your head in the sand," Dimon said at the World Economic Forum's annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, in January. "It is what it is. We're going to deploy it. Will it eliminate jobs? Yes. Will it change jobs? Yes. Will it add some jobs? Probably."

They spend so much on eliminating jobs and social programs. The government enables this by giving them tax cuts with money obtained by taking food out of the mouths of children? We could never "afford" universal health-insurance, but we could afford to invest in eliminating human workers that just want to put a roof over their head?

Seems like a recipie for guillotines.

But, hey

In 1775, a year before the Declaration of Independence was signed, a Harvard professor named Edward Wigglesworth did the math on American population growth and could barely contain his excitement. He had found that the colonists were doubling their numbers every 25 years, mostly through births, and at that pace he projected that by the close of the 20th century there would be “ONE THOUSAND TWO-HUNDRED AND EIGHTY MILLIONS” of us (his capitalization, not mine). A billion Americans, and then some.

Sadly, there are only about 340 million of us today. We should be asking not just why we so badly undershot Wigglesworth’s hopes, but also whether we are about to start counting down instead of up.

If America’s population does decline, it will strain our entitlements system, damage the economy, reduce innovation and entrepreneurship, and cause serious labor shortages. But the majority point of view — held by major institutions like the Census Bureau, the United Nations and the Social Security trustees — is that the United States probably won’t face population decline until the 2080s, or even beyond 2100.

It really shouldn't be surprising that the populace is declining after the tax system and medical insurance system we have in place. When you give all the food (money via tax breaks, which makes health-insurance easier to afford) to one group but not the other (rich over everyone else), don't be surprised when the other group doesn't have kids. The food pot is a zero-sum game. So, when all the food is going to one group, hunger sets in for the others. This means they don't have kids.

This guy is basically saying a lot of people will have to die (starvation) for the good of the ecconomy. When have I heard that before? Seems like there was a plague recently, and they said this very thing then too. What was it again?

Nope, the French knew what to do at the end of the 1700s.

I don't think the problem is inherently that AI is coming about. I think the problem is that the rich and powerful are racing to AI when we don't have a social safety-net to handle the mass unemployment this will cause. AI would be fine (mostly) if people weren't also at risk of losing their homes, food, and healthcare because of it. We are racing to replace human thought and production, but not ensuring people will be able to still eat.

America’s population wasn’t expected to start falling until 2081. Trump’s immigration crackdown means it could happen as soon as this year.

https://archive.ph/Wh2NB

Wait, I don't get this. I thought chatGPT was a word game related to words weighed by associations and probabilities. Now, chatGPT can operate a humanoid robot? Something smells fishy.

Don't worry. Only the filthy plebiscite will have to deal with the consequences. We'll be fine, so we'll triple down.

-Jeff Bezos to his investors, probably

Looks like we're going to be stuck with the gerontocracy in Congress for the foresee future.

Is this how we get Cylons? I think this is how we get Cylons.

Anonymous moderation on a supposedly open forum [email protected] is an astonishing act cowardice and dissent of views. When Planck himself said that the birth of quantum mechanics was an "act of desperation" and a "mathematical trick" the only thing left to moderate is ignorance.

Gödel’s Lesson: A “singularity” is math’s failure, not reality’s limit. The forthcoming Information Dynamics framework avoids it by treating existence as eternal resolution-transitions.

IMAGINE: In 2124, androids and humans coexist seamlessly. You’re sitting in a cozy cafe, watching two people have an intimate, almost lovers' conversation. One of them has a small glowing emblem on their wrist, an unmistakable sign that they are an android, required by law. Despite this, their connection feels real, deep, and natural, as if they’ve been in each other’s lives for years. The emblem is the only thing separating them from being human, but the conversation, full of quiet affection, feels indistinguishable from any other intimate exchange.

Given the growing movement to remove the emblem, would you support it or feel it should stay?