I believe it, myself as an example - was fairly conservative, even though grew up poor. Then went thru university later in life, ended up more liberal - if only after suffering the midwestern conservative deadbeat spawn classmates/roommates of college life

I like it, a hot take but I like it

This might be off on a tangent, But with the increase in memory and processing power I wonder if it would be advantageous to slice the content of a film into Pixel vectors instead of frame vectors, i.e. the data would consist of a pixels worth of data blocks, each containing a vector of that pixel's RGB value from from frame 0 to final frame. Currently machine learning on video data consists of blocks of data containing a frame of pixels, not a 'pixel of frames'

Hardly a desktop, that's a whole desk

It depends on what your definition of 'is' is

My argument is very simply that your 'cultural shift' to embrace the value of the individual, is empty. The value of the individual derives from the useful work that they contribute to the collective. And the main function of the market-driven economy is to reward that value. With AI and automation, that value has been watered down, and the only way to restore balance is to decrease the population to a number appropriate to the demand of society. Having a bunch of people 'just living' and being paid to breed more of the same? Sounds like a bad dream, not a cultural improvement

Maybe you are missing my point, although it's not a peachy one. I'll agree that MBI is an important stop-gap as automation takes over many jobs. But in the long run the most important adaptation will be a cap on procreation and a massive reduction in the human population. Market capitalism or Communism alike, the driving force behind human economy has been population. If we are to evolve beyond frogs, we will need less tadpoles

>A concrete example: being forced to learn skills for a type of labour that you don't care about simply to trade for the resources to survive.

Your entire stance seems to rest on the assumption that a mystical future AI will somehow manifest the ability to relieve humanity of all such work. This may never happen. And in free market societies no enforces anybody to learn anything. And what if someone changes their mind?

>AI is only an issue because it is perceived as taking away peoples' way of securing those resources necessary for survival

I get it, and I agree hypothetically that in its ideal AI would be more of a benefit than a threat, But the pushback is that the reality of AI today is that it's just another tool The markets will use to exploit the only real intrinsic value the human has: as a worker

What a completely solipsistic argument. So the reason we work is to sustain our own lives, and also the economy of the collective of all lives. Similarly the reason why we procreate, is to create more workers to do the same. By this logic then, we should stop procreating! Every little thing we do and take pleasure in is rooted in sustaining The biological collective welfare of the species. So most of these things should be abolished as well. Where do you draw the line?

It should be able to cause cancer too, we need balance in the universe

Yes but unfortunately we don't have a way to make a 'backup' of ourselves, so most of our progress gets lost. Potentially a quantum leap may happen but we will never know about it, as humanity descends back to it's primitive origins

I'll say the quiet part out loud: it's not the population that is in decline, it's the average IQ