definition of "socialism", which is: worker ownership of the means of production

Bzz, false. The dictionary definition of the term is:

a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies

See? No "worker ownership" — government ownership. Schools don't need to be owned by the teachers for public education to be socialist, they need to be owned by the government. And they are!

Same goes for retirement financing, and medicine for retires — with millions clamoring to expand it ("Medicare for all!!") — what GP enumerated. The "single-payer healthcare" — another euphemism — would be exactly that too.

Workers can own shares of their employers — indeed, Anthrophic employees do (and anticipate to profit handsomely). That's not socialism at all — not by the dictionary definition.

I blame the libertarians for making the definitions unclear

I blame you for pulling the definition from under your tail — and the morons upvoting you.

"anything the government does that benefits the people instead of corporations."

That's spelled "KKKorporation$". Make a note of it. Benefits the people, eh? The per-pupil spending nationwide went up (inflation-adjusted) from $9083 in 1989 to $13790 last year. And what did this expense buy us — the barely literate population unable to even define such terms as "socialism" correctly...

And they've adopted the word "democratic socialism"

The term (not "word"!!!) was adopted by "former" Communists, who've proudly elected a Senator some Congresswomen and, most recently, New York mayor. Who immediately proceeded to establish a government-owned supermarket.

some wondering if they were being picked on by President Trump

Seriously? "Some wondering" — and it is on front page... What a contrast to Trump's supporters accusations, his electoral win was stolen in 2020 — no, any time someone mentioned those, a bunch people would jump up to add: "unproven" and "without evidence".

AKA: mass layoffs.

AKA: people doing stuff, that does not need doing, having to find something else to do.

it is relieving workers of tedious old chores but creating new ones

Bot-sitting does not require as much attention as doing it myself requires. While the AI is handling the tedium, I can do something fun — both work-related and otherwise...

A co-worker next to me is doing cross-word puzzles, for example...

Apparently a *lot* of people on Slashdot are completely fooled by the CCP propaganda.

And some of them are CCP propaganda, using multiple "sockpuppets" to both post and moderate.

Decades earlier — during Vietnam war — USSR was financing all of "peace" movements in the West in particular, while attacking the "Capitalist way of life" in general. It'd be quite foolish for China to not be doing the same now. Even more foolish would be for us to not realize, that they do.

You mean like all those US voters that elected Trump in large part because of his "no wars" promises?

I don't know, what voters you're talking about. I voted for exactly the kind of aggressive stance Trump is showing, thank you very much. If anything, I'd like him to be still more aggressive — long years of appeasing foreign assholes have made them too confident, America's "red lines" can be ignored with impunity.

Looks like they lost control pretty quickly.

Do you seriously think, Chinese citizens have better control of their foreign policy? Or are you going to claim, America is "the same" or "just as bad"?..

How many American companies have ties to the U.S. military-industrial complex?

US military is controlled by American voters, such as myself. The rest of the world, make a choice already!

AI that can build itself would be a major development in the history of technology -- one that could bring enormous good for the world in science, healthcare, and beyond

Indeed!

If it were possible to effectively slow the development of this technology to give ourselves more time to deal with its immense implications, we think that would likely be a good thing

No, it would not be. I want more people's lives — my own included — improved by those developments. And I want it yesterday.

Imagine Wright brothers sabotaging airplane-development, because it would allow people to travel too far too fast? Or the early automakers fretting over "implications" of using internal combustion engines for personal vehicles — because millions of grooms and coachmen would lose their jobs?.. Electric lamp? Wow, nice — but what about the candle-makers?

LPR surveillance is unconstitutional.

No, it is not. There is no such article in the Constitution.

If they want to use LPR information, then make it a warranting process.

Ah, you're implying, the 4th Amendment covers license plates? No, it doesn't — the license is outside in plain sight. If I can legally see it, I can record it.

Now, the very requirement to have the license plate in the first place — that seems quite bogus to me. Not unconstitutional — just wrong. There is no argument for license plates on personal vehicles on the road, that wouldn't also apply to actual persons on the same road...

I'm old enough to remember when Gmail promised "unlimited storage".

So yeah your AI can outperform a doctor that gets 5 minutes with the patient before having to move on to the next one in order to keep their private equity Masters satisfied.

So, suppose, we stick it to the "private equity Masters", compel them to double the number of doctors — forget for a second, who is going to pay for them — and afford them a whopping 10 minutes with the patient.

ChatGPT will still beat humans... And it will be getting better with every month, whereas the humans will not...