I really want you to explain why you know better than the MIT researchers quoted in the summary who determined you are wrong. Most jobs can't be replaced by current LLM, that's what they found. Why do you disagree with it?

I said this:

You responded by saying rocks can think. Strong example of cognitive bias.

You're wrong here, and you refuse to cure your ignorance.

ok look. "Thinking" is defined with extreme mathematical rigor. It's not completely defined, but we can definitely rule some things out.

Of course, I don't have time to explain all the math here, so as an example I used the fact that rocks don't think. However, some people like you idiotically tried to argue that rocks do think. You are a moron! Why are you even arguing that??? Get off the internet for a while.

Road maintenance isn't the only cost. Automobiles have a lot of externalized costs that are bared by the government besides just building roads. You need to constantly be building out new cities with new infrastructure in order to make room for cars and a car centric society.

You could tax the car companies themselves to pay for it but good luck with that. Realistically if you have the political power to do something like that you probably wouldn't have a car centric society that shifts billions of dollars of cost on to consumers.

The examples I can find where someone actually got in trouble were explicit calls to violence. The famous one is a guy who wrote for a British sitcom called Father Ted. He explicitly said that if you see a trans girl in a woman's bathroom you should punch them in the balls. The two that got actual jail time were inciting an attack on a hotel full of immigrants during riots. Even in America that's not legal we just very seldom enforce those laws.

The example in the article you linked to the police admitted they were wrong and paid the people in question 20,000 British pounds as compensation. In America the 20K would not have been worth it because every time you interact with police there's a high probability they are going to kill you. When police get something wrong in America the payout should probably be at least half a million to account for that. But as far as I know the cops in the UK don't just randomly murder people for shits and giggles like they do in United States.

I'm not saying that there isn't some abuse going on though. 12,000 arrests is insane.

But at the same time they're probably needs to be a middle ground between arresting 12,000 people and the rampant stochastic terrorism we've got going on here in the United States where we've got idiots running around killing people trying to start a race war.

You can choose a lot of different things. The question remains, is this a viable way to structure an economic system in a world in which all of the necessities of life are produced with no (or almost no) labor?

Are you seriously proposing a world in which eight billion people are employed in producing master-crafted articles (and these master-crafted articles are "long term" purchases, hence with a small output needed.)?

Where do the peons get the money to buy mass-produced items?

A handful are master craftsmen. What about the other seven billion?

To be fair, this is nothing new. The entirety of the industrial revolution has been finding ways to use automation to decrease the amount of human labor used to make things (i.e., increase "productivity".)

The problem is that we do not have an economic system in which a society works when there is no need for human labor, and a small but rich fraction of the population owns the machinery that produces everything.

Read the book, your degree program failed you.

Your idea is that a NN which takes language as input, produces language as output... somehow has layers inbetween not related to language? Where do you come up with these ideas?

I stand corrected, this clearly shows that BYD cars are the best

If this is a topic you actually care about, there is a strong rec for this book, probably the best on the topic. You have the mental capacity to handle it.

Having "medicine security" is a good thing. You don't want all your medicine manufactured by a country that considers America an adversary.

It's a logical error to make an analogy, without also demonstrating that it applies to the situation. (Common mistake when people discuss legal things, which is why such conversations are often confusing).

No, I would not. I would care that you turn your brain on. If somehow you manage to do that, return to this comment, find the main point, and respond to that.