What if the brain can interface with the device on a hierarchical chain instead of equally? It may be able to delegate computing tasks to the interface while retaining everything that is related with consciousness within the biological part.

You would have to see what is the minimum biological brain size where a person is alive and functioning well, then connect the interface and show that - with the device attached - you can reduce the biological brain to a size that would otherwise be impossible and still have them retain consciousness. Then it must be shared with the machine.

Does anyone really ever know what they want for sure? I'd guess even the rich fucks with their think tanks must commonly doubt if their goals are really what they want. Their AIs can just as easily suffer from alignment to goals which have not been thought through properly.

Everyone thinking about alignment as if "alignment to what?" should be self evident (for society at large or individual groups, doesn't matter). Are we sure about what we want the AI to align with? Are the elites sure about what they want the AIs to align with?

Well, exactly. Thanks

Because sugar cane has never been cultivated in the Amazon areas ffs.

Look, the country is larger than the contiguous US, ok? I know y'all learned about the existence of the Amazon over the past few years while western countries struggle to shift their blame for climate change, but Brazil is not and was never covered in all by the forest. There is even an arid region in the country which is about the size of France + Germany together.

Fyi Brazil (slightly larger than contiguous US) is not at all just the Amazon forest.

Because for just Canada you can just say Canada and it would be weird af to say nothern america for Canada only considering Alaska exists.

No, this comment implies capitalism = competition. That is a terrible misunderstanding. Competition also can exist in socialism. That is called market socialism. Co-ops in fact compete with other co-ops. The only difference is shareholders and workers are the same people.

Yup, thank you. People really like the fallacy "useful in the past" = "useful in the future".

Sure slave owners thought slavery was responsible for all development they had.

Not to mention the argument "capitalism created innovations" could well be "innovations existed in spite of capitalism, not because of it" and there is absolutely no way we would know.

See Mercedes announced a car model for which you can pay a subscription to unlock the full performance of the motor? See NFTs? See AI snatching up all available housing for corporate investors?

That's the answer: artificial scarcity has always been a feature of this system and will only get worse.

Why are you so against voting for who your managers and executives are in the company you work for, instead of having that be privilege of shareholders who never worked a day in the company?

Why do you think democracy at work is so unacceptable?

Capitalism is so competitive you can literally begin a startup today and seriously compete with google in a couple years \s

Hi kid, you think you sound clever but the problem for you is everyone reading this knows what the options are, you don't need to reveal your "secret sauce" for social ownership.

You say it is social ownership but: it isn't central government, it isn't community governments, it isn't co-ops, it isn't capitalist and it isn't delusional anarcho-goodwill-pipedream.

Your problem: there is no other option.

You can't sit there and attempt to pretend you hold another answer for a debate which is literally centuries old, with hundreds of authors already having published the well known alternatives.

This is exactly why your "uh oh I won't say what it is and then just claim you are putting words in my mouth" can't work in this context: because nobody will give 2 seconds credit to the idea that you may be some genius who came up with an yet unknown and highly plausible solution for this problem yet spends time on Reddit instead of publishing a best selling book.

I will not get a notification from you so don't even bother writing.

You are literally answering me in seconds when I take multiple hours between the convo because I enjoy wasting my employer's time during work. Who do you think is having fun?

You want social ownership without co-ops and without government. So when your gotcha must be either small communities (that is still government but small), or anarchist (that is delusional borderline libertarian unless you have co-ops) I don't know what else to do but laugh really hard

Right. You don't know how to answer the question. I thought you were supposed to be the Marx expert.

What do you mean by social ownership? Who exactly owns what exactly, and through what institutions?

And you read that as government ownership?

Again, heart in the right place.

Co-ops are very much marxism.

If you think Marx suggested central ownership you never read Marx.

Look, you seem to have your heart in the right place but right now you are in contrarian mode and you only care about winning the internet argument and won't hear. So I won't bother. Spend more time thinking about this and good luck there.

The vital law of spreading capital among workers instead of shareholders? Because those are also gone.

Use your goddamn brain. Co-op is wealth distribution. Co-op is workers owning their means of production. How are those vital laws of capitalism?

Mind articulating your proposal a little further?

The capitalist firm. Doing things in GROUPS is still necessary. Loads of things people can't do as standalone professionals. What's your suggestion if not co-ops? Every time I had to make this question the answer was co-ops but with a different name, so think hard.

Always good to remember UBI needs to be accompanied by universal wealth limit. Limit the low end and limit the high end. Otherwise regulatory capture and consolidation all over again (all UBIs flow to the corporations as you spend to survive, prices increase just enough to avoid UBI being enough to save money).

NFT

co-ops?

Discouraging reproduction is the nice side. Genocide is another option.

These didn't exist until literally months ago. When Dall-e 1 was released two years ago it was fun and amazing but completely unusable for anything professional. Then Dall-e 2 came out. Then Stable Diffusion came out. Then people said SD was unusable because you couldn't generate the same character/object multiple times in different contexts, one month later DreamBooth came out and now you can use SD to generate HD pictures of yourself in StarWars world or smth.