If AI is truly eliminating jobs, and keeping them eliminated, there is only one possible reason why: AI is delivering value.
If this is not true, nobody has anything to worry about: everyone who invests in it will go broke and things will get back to normal. This does not seem likely at this point, however.

Technology that delivers value is a good thing. It has always been resisted (sometimes violently) by the displaced workers. But this isn't because the technology was bad, its because those workers were staring down hard times. Striking out against the tech was something they could easily do (whereas, actually reskilling and finding other jobs may not have been viable, and may have involved taking a step down into a lower social class, or starving to death on the street, depending on the details). But, striking against the tech didn't work. And will never work. If the tech delivers real value, too many powerful people will embrace it for any public protesting to stop it.

I am not saying it is ok to just throw people out into the cold, en masse. I am not saying that there won't be repercussions. I am saying that the rise of technology is inevitable, and the protests are futile.

Everyone who hates capitalism (of which there are many who post on this site) should rejoice at this. The one and only way humanity will ever achieve communism is by having an automated labor force that does all the dirty work. Until we have that, every attempt will go the exact same way every other historical attempt has ever gone. We simply cannot, and will never, "escape" capitalism until we have true labor automation. Every step on that road will be painful. That doesn't make the tech evil.

Everyone who loves capitalism (of which there are many who post on this set) should rejoice too. Capitalism is good because competition is the great optimizer, right? Not because it guarantees jobs for people who have outdated skillsets. This is just another link in the chain of progress that capitalism has brought us. All we need to do is find the right way to adapt to the new tech (which may include shuffling around a few laws if necessary). Once we are well positioned to really capitalize on AI, there will be a lot of wealth created and the wheels of industry will continue to turn.

If we want to protest, let's protest the local harmful impacts of those data centers and push the surprising costs right back on the companies that own them. And for sure lets protest against use of AI in decision making that could unfairly harm people impacted by those decisions. This sort of thing is already happening, and should continue. Protesting "AI" and spinning wild narratives about how it will doom the world is just silly.

Whatever surprises AI brings, we will adapt to them.

Boosters are risking their freedom and even their lives. If it was easier for them to find work then they'd do legitimate work instead of boosting. Selling at flea markets is a job itself, so they're clearly willing to work.

In this case, the primary 'advertising' is apparently for apartments using online websites.

One apartment complex cheating and offloading much of the "rent" into "fees" so they can list at a lower price online encourages all of them to do it, making the comparison shopping of the websites practically useless.

Because the website helpfully provides structured data with tags which make it clear what it is, it's very easy to just use old fashioned and cheap filters to exclude content like that from the training set without losing anything else.

Protesting something that doesn't happen is better PR for you than protesting something that does...

If you've got 1 bad cop, and 9 "good" cops who are covering for him, what you've actually got there is 10 bad cops.

You have it exactly right. I can see why you didn't post with an identity, you'd get punished by the reich wingers. Wage theft exceeds all other theft combined but maggots are still crying about shoplifters

I remember being a college student....many years ago....

I was really into computer science, and also philosophy. I took those classes with great eagerness. Oh and foreign language too.

I couldn't care less about the other crap they required me to take in order to make my education well-rounded. Physics just didn't do it for me. I was a native English speaker already and learned nothing from the lit and creative writing classes. There was Art appreciation, mythology, some phys ed...all blow off classes that I took only because they were required. I am sure those professors found me unmotivated. Oh, economics was tolerable, but I never would have taken it without having been forced, and learned nothing useful beyond the high-school level economics I had already taken.

It's all different now. I read up on all kinds of brainy topics just for fun, including the stuff I blew off in college. I realize I am just one data point, but it seems consistent with available evidence: college-age kids are, by and large, sick of school and only motivated to chase their specific passions. Forcing well-roundedness on them is mostly just a way of forcing them to spend more money on elements of an education that they won't retain or use in their chosen career paths. Offer well-rounded educations only to those who seek it, and we will see engagement increase across the board.

If we are truly worried about people being unprepared to face the adult world, we should be teaching classes in investing and personal finance management, nutrition, only the most basic phys ed (how to jog and lift weights), maybe some household maintenance. These are all practical skills that we are supposed to learn from our parents, but often don't. Maybe some schools teach some of this these days, but they didn't when I was in school. Well they did teach phys ed but way over did it. Forcing kids who don't like sports to play sports is not helping them. Teaching people why aerobic exercise is good and how to lift weights with proper form absolutely is helping them.

You're such a sad little man

The company is the operator.

We can hold corporations responsible, we just usually don't

80 to 90 percent of small businesses fail in the first year (depending on the type of business).

That means that I have pretty good odds of being right, no matter who reads the post.

I suppose we could look at this another way: owning stock means owning part of a business. Something like 60% of Americans own stock (I don't know about other parts of the world), so in that sense any random reader of my post might be at least a partial owner of a business. But you have to own a lot of stock for the income to be significant.

You know the reason all the games have a bunch of gender fluid furries? Because that's what the kids want to see. You know why? Because it makes you apoplectic.

"What is the regret from ending those things?"

Even if you don't care about the tens of thousands of lives lost because of the kind of piece of shit you are, you should care about ending USAID leading to the screwworm reaching the US. And maybe you would if you weren't in Russia.

Besides this, the NYC rule seems to cover rental agreements, which the FTC rule did not cover, to my knowledge.

Indeed, but I was answering the question: "It seems like there is an obvious business opportunity for a domestic tractor manufacturer here. Anyone care to explain why nobody has moved into this market?"
European tractors would not be a domestic manufacturer. A domestic company moving into the market would be a "new manufacturer" and would have to invest quite a bit into development - design, manufacturing, etc...
It's easier for other companies, whether Chinese, Japanese, or European to move in instead with their own superior offerings.