squidbeak

This presupposes a state strong enough to apply the decisions of those votes, which can't be guaranteed. The problem is that we need government power and authority to exceed that of the AI developers. But this is the age when large government is generally seen as undesirable or a threat to the individual.

> Especially in Europe where you obviously have countries like Belgium that aren't nation states to begin with.

Belgium has been independent for almost 200 years, and is one of the founding members of the the UN. In what possible way is it not a nation state?

> Meanwhile, authorities have offered Smith a plea deal including a $1,000 fine, $1,000 in restitution and three years' probation. She has refused, saying she is innocent.

This is nuts. Is it possible US prosecutors give so few shits about justice?

I think the poster's point was, "Imagine what we could be applying our ingenuity to if the bastards invading us would only piss off."

In what sense will it be killed? I don't plan to stop writing my own messages or notes, just because AI can write, and I seriously doubt many other people who prefer their own voices will change either.

The two can be true at once. OpenAI can be remiss leaving it this way so long, and deleting the files can be a practical workaround.

I'm sure this is a naive question, but have you considered just deleting the logs?

This is just a question of resource allocation and priorities. If a society can afford the displaced costs of unregulated production and extraction, or fleets of aircraft carriers and upkeep for however many thousand nuclear weapons it possesses, or oligarchs (how many is it now?) diverting wealth into superyachts, it can also afford sufficient spaces for people to piss in and janitors to clean them.

Pragmatic, but have you considered the predicament you'll be in if you need to go before lunch?

5 years? Look at the leaps since last November. Since the Spring, even.

Your question presupposes new algorithms must come from someone toiling. But AI will be just as capable at developing new algorithms as ripping off the existing ones, surely?

This doesn't sound right. How do you explain places like Utah?

(Not that Mormon voting was ever directed by Japanese mating habits. But you get my point.)

> Instead of working with humans, I increasingly work with a fleet of agents.

I do too, but it means I have more time in my life to spend with people.

> the notion of the thing that grants you status, prestige, and a living wage being commodified would spark in anyone a profound sense of dread.

Not for those without status (which is most people on this planet). But yes, AI is set to wipe out most established hierarchies and their gatekeepers, and to equalize most fields. A profound sense of dread is something most ordinary people live with throughout life, and if AI can reduce systemic unfairness, I bet most people will actually find some degree of relief from that dread. The complacency of the formerly-statused being shocked along the way isn't much of an argument against that equalization.

> Beyond just making you redundant in your job, the whole architecture of your existence, the thousands of hours of struggle, the sacrifice of putting off social games or personal enjoyment are now rendered moot in hindsight.

This passage answers itself, doesn't it? You can sense those things you postponed fun for (work and the apparatus around its struggle) were never worth it. So why fight for us all to have to keep working just to live? Isn't a post-scarcity world the thing we should all be fighting for?