Have a bunch of human judges and some instances of the bot in question all participating in a chat together, or randomly paired together for a while and then re-paired, so that humans are judging humans as well as bots, and have no idea which is which.

If a human is frequently judged as a bot by other humans, that human's judgements are de-weighted, because apparently they're too stupid to be distinguished themselves from an AI, so why should we trust their ability to distinguish other humans from AIs.

Although, I wonder if exceptionally intelligent humans with perfect spelling and grammar, a wide range of knowledge, and high typing speed, might be mis-judged as AIs too, for being "too good". Some hunt-and-pecker who can't tell their/they're/there apart might see someone who gives an intelligent response in complete, grammatically-correct sentences in half a minute as inhuman.

Governments are made of people and do whatever the majority of politically active people want or at least allow them to do. You're reading too much into my position and wrongly assuming, as most do, that the negation of capitalism necessarily entails some kind state-controlled command economy, and that opposition to capitalism means support of the state. There's a thing called libertarian socialism which opposes both. You should look it up.

Anyway, yeah, governments can enslave and exploit and steal and so on just as others can -- and note here that "governments" is not the antonym of "individuals", as there are non-government aggregate entities (corporations being the big one here, but clubs, coops, NPOs and NGOs, even families, all count too), and governments like all aggregate entities are still composed ultimately of individuals.

The point is that what people will tend to do is always constrained by what other people -- acting as individuals or in aggregate, as governments or otherwise -- let them do. And what people should or shouldn't let other people do is always going to be an ideological issue. What's happening now is what people tend to do, yeah -- when other people let them do that and don't let them do other things that they might do instead. Whether that is the right choice of things to let and not let people do is a moral question, and even saying "yeah it's fine how it is now whatever" is taking a position on that moral question, not some kind of above-the-fray neutrality.

Maybe not but you suggested that capitalism was in some way non-ideological when it's certainly not.

Yes and, as was my point, people when left to their own device also tend to do whatever they can to exploit and live off the work of others up to and including enslaving them and credibly threatening them with death to enforce that enslavement. The slave-driven economies of the ancient world, the capitalist economies of the modern world, and the feudal economies that bridged the gap between them, were none more or less "natural" than the others. They were and are just what people tended to do in their respective times when nobody stopped them from doing it. In other times people did stop them from doing some of those things, and then people tended to do other things instead; if we allowed feudalism or slavery today, people would tend to do those sometimes too. Would that make a nonchalant stance toward slavery somehow non-ideological? Would "people hold slaves, and I don't object to that" be ideologically neutral just because if nobody objects to it people will tend to hold slaves?

There was no equation, there was illustration by analogy.

You claim that people tend to do a certain thing if nobody stops them and then claim that supporting or allowing that thing is ideologically neutral because of it.

I point out that there are other things that people tend to do if nobody stops them, things that we do not generally consider non-chalant attitudes toward to be ideologically neutral.

Thus illustrating a counterexample to the principle you seem to be employing, to make the point that accepting or protesting the practices of capitalism is no less ideologically neutral than accepting or protesting the practice of slavery, etc. Not because the two are the same thing, but because in either case it doesn't matter whether people will tend to do it if not stopped or not, you're still taking an ideological position if you say either that you're ok with it or that you're not.

If you're asked "Should this happen?", any answer you give will be a moral opinion. If you respond "that does happen", you've just avoided the question and given an answer to a completely different one.

Analytic philosophy's adherence to mathematical rigor is what saved it from falling down the post-modern hole that swallowed up all the "other humanities".

(I'm not fond of that category "humanities" and how philosophy doesn't fit well into it. Paintings and literature are just arts. History is a thing of its own that transcends all the fields, arts and sciences alike, and so is philosophy. Lumping half the arts in with two big overarching fields in their own right doesn't sit well with me. Math also shouldn't be lumped in as a science, that's a thing of its own too on part with art, and we're completely lacking the normative analogues of science, engineering, and technology, although some things like sociology and anthropology are approximating a normative analogue of science, and bus-econ courses are in the right general area for a normative analogue of engineering and technology, but that whole area is woefully underdeveloped).

(I drew a diagram of something like this once, though I wasn't sure how exactly to incorporate history into it).

People also steal from and enslave and murder each other when you "leave them alone", in the sense of total unregulated anomie.

To say that people should be "left alone" in that sense is still to take an ethical, moral, or as you've been calling it, ideological stance. To say that nobody should do anything about it; that it is ok, acceptable behavior. Moral nihilism is still a moral position: the position that everything and its negation is OK, that nothing is either forbidden or obligatory.

Now on the other hand, what I think you probably more likely meant to say, is that free markets (which are not identical to capitalism) are what happen when people leave each other alone, in the sense of not stealing from and enslaving and murdering and otherwise violating and exploiting each other. But because people will violate and exploit each other if "left alone" in the earlier sense, i.e. if nobody stops them, then in order to achieve a state where we all leaving each other alone in the later sense, we cannot "leave alone" those who would violate and exploit others.

Freedom requires either everybody to be perfectly well behaved of their own accord (good luck with that), or for there to be enough people actively counteracting the misbehavior of others (but going no further in their actions against those others than to counteract their actions). As Adam Smith put it, a free market is a well-regulated market.

And whether the practices that underlie capitalism (which, again, does not simply mean a free market) count as misbehavior or not, and are in need of counteraction or not, is an ideological position. Should we let people exclude others from the means of production by force, and even help them do so? (i.e. should it be privately owned?). Should we let people demand repayment on borrowed money or goods beyond the return of the money or goods, on threat of force, and even help them do so? (i.e. should contracts of rent and interest be enforceable?) Capitalism answers "yes" to both of those questions; a "no" answer to either would not be capitalism, but could still be a free market.

To lose a free market, you'd have to answer "yes" to "Should we let people demand goods and services from others on threat of force?" It could be argued that allowing that on threats other than force would also lose the freedom of the market. Should we let people demand goods and services from others on threat of the release of private information (e.g. blackmail, I'll tell about your affair unless you pay me off). Should we let people demand goods and services from others on threat of letting them starve or freeze to death because they have no food or shelter? Now it's getting into controversial territory. But no matter what your answer to that question is, you're taking an ideological stance.

Somehow I don't think the government licking my balls really conveys the right idea of the bad things they're doing. That's generally the kind of thing you'd tell someone you don't like to do because it demeans them and pleasures you, not the kind of thing someone oppressing you does to you of their own choice.

Well, maybe it's different for men and women, their stereotypical experiences and perceptions at least. A bunch of pervs wanting to lick a woman's genitals against her will gets more into the territory they're probably trying to convey here.

I wouldn't know how to make sense of "2.3 times smaller" in any context. Except maybe... you have things A, B, and C, and B is smaller than A, as is C, and the A-C = 2.3 * A-B. But I wouldn't know what to make of it if you just said "C is 2.3 times smaller than B!" without the comparison to A. And I don't know how you would phrase that comparison... "C is 2.3 times smaller than A than B?" That's just confusing.

...if you own your own home, which the majority of Americans do not.

You're both right. Bad social skills result in rejection and loneliness which results in resentment which results in a lack of empathy which results in misogyny. The resentment is the missing piece there.

That's not a justification of anything, just an explanation.

Merits of mandatory insurance aside, your analogy is broken.

Nobody is being forced to take birth control; some people are being forced to pay to provider others with the option of birth control, if those others choose to use it.

The gun analogue would not be that people are forced to have smart gun technology on their guns, but that some people would be forced to pay to provide others with the option of smart gun technology on their guns, if those others choose to use it.

Ok, say you own a bus company, and you pay people to drive your busses, and you also ride your own busses. You're sitting quietly at the back of the bus reading a book when the driver rear-ends the car in front of the bus. Are you personally responsible? Your company? The driver?

For that matter, reduce it down to an even simpler scenario: you have a paid chauffeur. You own the car and you pay a guy to drive it so you can sit in the back and relax. When your chauffeur drives your car into someone else's, who is responsible?

What if instead of you personally paying the chauffeur, you hired a chauffeur company to send some guy of their choosing to drive you around, in your car still. When their driver causes a wreck, who is responsible?

Now imagine your chauffeur is instead a robot. Do you own or rent that robot? Does that make a difference in responsibility?

And because he's a robot doing only one mechanical function, he doesn't even need a body, so he's just a program in your car's computer. Does own/rent even make a difference there since there's no question that the physical car belongs to you and the "intellectual property" of the program doesn't?

Let's do one better than that:

You have a standard set of rights and responsibilities. They can be conditional (e.g. if X then you must Y, unless X you may not Y, etc).

Nobody can change anybody else's rights or responsibilities, in any way, including by mutual agreement. You cannot sign away your rights or responsibilities. You can only change which conditions in fact obtain, and consequently which conditional rights and responsibilities may or may not apply to you.

In other words, fuck contracts in general.

You insensitive clod.

The reason locals don't take the jobs is *because* they don't need it. They are in high enough demand that they can get better-paying jobs elsewhere. The businesses don't like the employees having the leverage like that for once, so they want to bring in more cheap labor to fix that problem and bring down the overall cost of labor, so that the locals *can't* pass up the low-paying jobs because then they'd be passing up all jobs since there's always more low-paid immigrants to do it at that price if the locals won't.

Consider whatever you do for a living. You can command a certain wage for that job, that is to say you can expect to get paid a certain amount, and that amount is set by how low you could possibly afford to go (your costs of your labor), how much employers could possibly afford to pay you (the value of your labor), how many jobs of that kind are open (how in demand your kind of labor is), and how many other people could do that job (how much supply for that kind of labor there is). Consider a scenario where the number of jobs and the number of qualified workers are well-matched: there aren't unfilled jobs, any employer can always find a worker if they're willing to pay them well. But the employers of course want to pay less for the same value of labor if they can. So if they could suddenly bring in a bunch of new workers who for whatever reason can or will accept a much lower pay than you and others in your field (lowering costs and increasing supply), then they will hire all of those people instead of the locals like you, unless locals like you are willing to accept those lower prices too (because if you don't, you'll be passed up for someone who will). They didn't have a shortage of workers, they had a shortage of workers-willing-to-accept-lower-prices. Bringing in more workers willing to accept lower prices forces all of the workers to accept those lower prices by creating an excess of workers and forcing workers to choose between lower pay or unemployment.

Just because a business can't fill a job for a specific price doesn't mean it can't fill it for any price. Maybe they think that price is not worth the value of the work, but if those people are passing up those jobs for higher-paying ones elsewhere, then clearly someone thinks it is worth it, and the other businesses are either just cheapskates who don't want to pay more, or are doing something wrong that they can't get the full value out of their employees' labor, in which case they deserve to fail to those other (higher-paying) businesses that can.

The question is whether those qualified citizens are willing to accept wages as low as the companies want to offer.

Ad the answer is no, so the companies would much rather bring in immigrants over whom they have far more leverage and who will accept lower wages... consequently lowering the average wage for those positions that local citizens are applying for.

The companies offer positions requiring high qualifications and low pay; those who are qualified won't accept the pay, so they cry there's "no qualified applicants" and demand more visas to bring in immigrants willing to accept a lower price.