...says man who has posts on reddit, and posts a public youtube video with his actual voice on the voiceover, while describing his specific use case for tools in sufficient detail that Google definitely can identify him internally right now, and probably any number of moderately motivated doxxers within 24 hours.

Recently I've seen that Blue Trane copy-pastes some of his posts from LLMs.

The only thing more contemptible and perverse than a bot programmed to pretend to be human, is a human voluntarily diminishing himself to be merely another repeater node for a bot which is trying to pretend to be him, in some kind of inverted Inception which obviates Selfhood.

It's like two people playing some turn-based game over a network where both of them are using the same cheat software to attempt to win against the other. In their desire to win, they both lose. For what is the purpose of playing, if not playing as yourself, with your own mind?

Hollowing out the conscious volition which is your natural gift by heredity, and replacing it with directed motions of your fingers which merely input the moves provided by somebody else's program -- you zombify yourself, render yourself interchangeable, replaceable, unreal. There is at that point no outcome difference between your fingers and anyone else's. You could pay someone to pay someone to pay someone to pay someone to pay a 9yo child in Cambodia to check the cheat software and enter your moves. If you then get hit by a truck and die, the app and your opponent would never know anything had changed. Somebody else - anybody else - could step in to continue the chain of payment, and the entire system would register no change in state/outcome. Money changes hands (flowing ever toward specific collectors regardless of what path it takes) but nothing real is actually produced. It's one of those disappearing-knot string tricks you learn in primary school.

And indeed, that is the future our governments and captains of industry are striving toward with every ounce of energy they can muster. When we're all paying someone to pay someone to pay someone to pay someone to pay someone to help us do what the payment system needs us to do in order to justify itself. And when your husk passes, another husk rises to take your place. The popularity of zombie movies/TV over the past 25 years is no accident. It dominates the collective unconscious for the same reason as any dream dominates your sleep -- it is the product of something we all sense, but within our view-limited personal slice of the picture most of us cannot quite identify its source. So we cast it in stylized symbolic terms in order to process the emotional experience, unfortunately without ever being able to point, name, and thus counteract it.

This is probably the biggest sign that the entire price scheme is distorted beyond all reality.
It is now customary to have an $8-$15 "processing fee" when all the processing is done by a smaller team of humans managing an automated system, whereas 40 we paid zero dollars in "processing fees" when there was actual processing being done by 20,000 actual human beings across the country who each got paid to sit at a desk all day and hand you tangible paper tickets.

Now that I think about it that way, on its current trajectory the future of AI is to turn every industry into Ticketmaster/LiveNation. Ticketmaster/LiveNation is the GOAT of profit strategy. Every young business hopes someday they grow up to be like Ticketmaster/LiveNation.

Good points. They seem to run well with my just-came-up-with-it proposal for an auto-depreciating ticket market: https://news.slashdot.org/comm...

But especially to your second point, perhaps the best outcome of a price-decay system is for the venues. Because one of the problems with the current bot-scalping industry is that sometimes events "sell out" in terms of tickets, but actual attendance is below capacity. That means we have both inefficient allocation of resources and lost revenue from the alcohol/concessions for the venue (which is sometimes shared with the artist/promoter on a percentage) and the artist merch table.

Under a price-decay system, you ought to see higher attendance across all events because of all the people who aren't superfans, but would on a last-minute whim think, "Sure I'll be in the nosebleeds, but for $25 each I can bring a couple friends for fun so we can get drunk and sing along with those two radio hits we recognize, and still have money left for a cool tshirt to show off that We Were There".

That makes the total pie bigger for all participants - artists, venue, promoter, fans - EXCEPT the scalpers. It dramatically raises their risk of getting stuck with un-resold tickets because they know they'll be competing with lower prices as we get closer to the event. And the smaller profit margin of those last-minute tickets is not worth the risk of trying to bot-purchase in bulk since you don't have as much time to turn around and resell them. Thus they're incentivized to be more downward-elastic with pricing.

Having a broader range of prices encourages full participation. It's like restaurant wine menus. If you only have your $7/glass house white and then a jump to $25/glass prestige wine, you'll make less revenue. Smart restaurateurs know that diners will upsell themselves if you give them a gradient. Your high dollar foodies are not going to stoop to the cheap glass because there's no psychological cachet to drinking it, thus it is literally worth zero dollars to them. Your low dollar folks are not going to jump that high differential even for a splurge, but if you give them a spectrum they WILL reason themselves from the $7 to the $10 to the $14 glass "as a special treat". You're always gonna sell more of your 2nd and 3rd cheapest wine than your luxury OR your house vintages.

If we want to see true equilibrium pricing with market forces, how about something like this?

The event is June 1.
January 1, tix go on sale from the original promoter for $1000 each, and you get to pick whatever seats you want.
February 1, the remaining tix go on sale for $500 each, and you get to pick whatever seats you want from what's left.
March 1, the remaining tix go on sale for $250 each, and you get to pick whatever seats you want from what's left.
April 1, the remaining tix go on sale for $100 each, and you get to pick whatever seats you want from what's left.
May 1, the remaining tix go on sale for $50 each, and you get to pick whatever seats you want from what's left.
May 31, the remaining tix go on sale for $10 each, and you get to pick whatever seats you want from what's left.

This is effectively a regressive-taxation system, so should be loved by many slashdot regulars.
Those for whom the event is a fun luxury they can easily afford due to their high wealth, can buy tix early and reserve their favorite seat location. They pay more according to their ability.
Scalpers have no incentive to scoop up tix for two reasons:
1) the initial retail price is so high that there's no margin to make in reselling.
2) Unless a single scalper can afford to buy up an entire 30,000 seat arena at $1000 each, there WILL be seats left and thus prices WILL continue come down in the future. In other words, prices rise because of competition in the demand side. With this time-decay price structure, scalpers aren't competing with other scalpers (and fans) for the resale margins, but you are forcing scalpers to compete against their future selves. The tickets their bots harvest today WILL depreciate in value. There's no longer any point to harvest-and-hold tix.

Additionally, this will allow every participant - artists, promoters, venues, fans, casual observers on slashdot - to finally learn exactly what the real market value is for a given event. There will be an obvious bell-distribution graph where the most ticket movement happened. Everyone will actually have to decide both what price point is worth it for them AND what risk level they can tolerate if they wait until the next price drop and that's also everyone else's price point. THAT price point where the big collective moves happen -- that's a great approximation of your true equilibrium price.

As a benefit, this makes the top-dollar events more reasonable AND makes the smaller events more lucrative to the promoters and artists.
1) Prestige mainstream events like Beyonce and Swift will still always sell 80% in the first couple months, and then the medium-tail trickle to the nosebleed sections in months 3 and 4.
2) Less mainstream artists will still have their superfans who are willing to spend $1000 to ensure they get a ticket and get the exact seat they want so they can have their Very Special Connection with the artist who Sees Their Inner Soul. This increases the total revenue by creating a Premium tier above what that event would normally command even with scalpers. The fans who were only going to go if it was less than $50 will still have their chance to go cheaply.

That was the OP's point. Hence the "oh wait..."

You've posted this response all over the thread.
Thing is, anyone can apply it to every part of the curriculum.

So to demonstrate your sincerity in the discussion, list for us the specific skills you do want your tax dollars to teach in schools.

Ah, here's a comment that says it better than I did: https://slashdot.org/comments....

to notice that the entirety of Alien: Earth is an exact analogue to the race among billionaires for AGI. With all the same egos and all the same downstream consequences for the 99.9999% of the planet.

This feels a good bit like saying rain runs on ocean and clouds but water is a side issue.
What is enabling the current level of production and consumption to happen?

It will be this, because that's how human intelligence works.
There is no such thing as unitary consciousness.
It's the emergent aggregate internetwork and general-purpose vector sum produced by a set of local electrochemical networks and special-purpose processes all signal-patterning among each other.
Your Self is the result (and feedback loop) of traffic shaping.

My favorite aspect of your very-well written summary is how it is indistinguishable from the action at a poker table. Which further highlights what everyone already knows - the choices driving the economy of this global technological civilization are being made in the context of gambling. The cards themselves do have some nonzero tangible value as physical assets, but the hands have no inherent value. The value of your pocket 94 is whatever your chip stack can handle and whatever you can convince (ie can afford to convince) others your potential hand is worth, based on their own chip stack and what they can call or raise (ie can afford to call or raise) you on.

The entire planet is Emperor's New Clothes and Greater Fools all the way down.

Is this where CBS journalism standards are in 2025?

Granted, I am on the downhill slide of life so perhaps this has changed, but in the USA sitting presidents are labeled with their title of office. I do not ever recall CBS political newscasters and commentators saying, "Mr. Clinton spoke to Congress today" or "Mr. Bush held a press conference".
You can drop the title for brevity and just say "Obama"; but if you use a title when referring to someone acting in their official capacity, it isn't "Mr. Obama".

Did style guidelines change recently, or does CBS now stand for Columbia Bias System?

In summary, you now stipulate:
1) You understood perfectly well what he said. Just like all the rest of us understood perfectly well what he said.
2) Nevertheless, you made a choice to parse the statement in the most extreme ragebait way possible and then argue with him for your parsing.
3) To that end, instead of directly quoting him in a meaningful, you began posting that he said the words you chose to parse -- "we'll actually like it that the kid was killed" -- rather than what he actually said even though you admit that you in fact understood.
4) When asked who said "we'll actually like it that the kid was killed", you at first continue to insist on your chosen re-wording and argue with people who understood what was said.
5) Now you pivot to say you also understood it, but the combination of certain trigger words was.the real problem.
6) Then you finish with both owning and disowning your original statement, by explaining that the wording would be problematic to some hypothetical roomful of other people, and that everyone here on slashdot who understood perfectly well what he was saying, should go "Argue with them".

So you have an argument to make, and you make it across several posts, but when anyone challenges your willful mis-parsing of the original comment, you switch to saying it's not your argument and we should go find and argue with the people who might make that argument. Okay, then why make the argument here on slashdot at all? This isn't the Senate floor or a shareholder earnings press release. We're just people talking to other people. What's the benefit of having people language-police their everyday statements for every hypothetical edge case?

Let's simply end the thread and award you the good citizenship ribbon for defending:
theoretically-triggerable feelings of
hypothetical people
who aren't here to react to
a statement that nobody here made.

Man, I feel like that pretty much sums up 95% of social criticism on the Internet these days.

Correct.

I read the entire thread. I didn't see the post he refers to that said we'll actually like it that a kid was killed.