The privacy suits might be successful but:

Yeah that's gonna fail. Users definitely consented to that.

Technocracy is the subject at hand and unless we are all planning to go back to the 1900 or even the late 20th century nothing is going to stop humanity's desire to progress. If you also consider that some humans have a desire for absolute power and control then you have a starting point for why many systems of government have issues; Human beings are incredibly varied in their desires and opinions.

If you then couple the above with the wide prevalence of mental illness throughout humans then we arrive to where we are today, recognizing that there is no such thing as a perfect system just one that is designed to being perfected through good laws for the people it is to serve. Democracy does it with paper, Technocracy does it with the real time communication en masse.

Technocracy is the evolution of Democracy, regardless of if it is regulating Capitalism or any of the other isms out there. Like the Westminster system it is designed for independence and not a two party system, one could argue it is designed for interdependence however overt technocratic systems don't exist yet so we don't really know.

So that's the context, now for the scenario.

A technocracy does not serve a Left or Right side of politics, which becomes obsolete along with lobbyists and replaced with built in AI oversight, I.e. Technocracy accepts AI exists and regulates its function with law. Technocracy's purpose is to serve the people via frequent digital ballots by making the process of voting on anything extremely easy. To paraphrase Franklin about the flaws in the US constitution will lead to "a corrupted people only fit to be ruled by a despotic leader" (full quote below) is arguably where we are now. Technocracy is an attempt to fix that flaw.

Flaws in Democracy and Technocracy are education and participation, however instead of insisting that most people are rational creatures who don't have any other priorities, technocracy allows the possibility of increased rationality and government oversight for the populous. The balance between individual rights and societal order is attempted by ballot frequency, right to your phone, and also allows for other features in line with the requirements of society that is digitally and AI enabled.

Nothing is perfect, including technocracy. The question is What's better and the collapse of democracy into corporatism is certainly not as attractive as the control a populous gets with a Technocratic acceleration of Democracy. Personally I see Democracy under threat and a technocratic society as a logical evolution of democracy the most desirable outcome.

How it is shaped is something everyone can participate in to achieve an ideal more resistant to the forms of modern corruption and mental health issues (the core means to manipulate a population) Ben Franklin could only conceptualize we would face in the 21st century.

This is his full quote, which almost seem prophetic, spelling out his rational concerns;
" I agree to this Constitution with all its faults - if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other."

So Franklin warned us, as in the present generation living right now, that the issues we would face IS the collapse of democratic forms of government. He warned us about despotic leaders who steer the corrupted (as in lied to, manipulated, misinformed) populous from the freedoms generations before us sought to leave us, and back into the stagnant feudalism (arguably worse than communism) from which we came.

1) TikTok did not manipulate all WLW into thinking it is OK. They had maybe one case of success. I admit their are idiots out there - in both white and black, liberal and conservative, male and female. The existence of one idiot does not mean the majority of people are morons. Democracy expects there to be more intelligent people than morons. If this is not true, Democracy would fail even without AI.

2) People have been manipulating idiots for thousands of years, having AI do it also does not change anything.

3) They did not convince normal people, they convinced idiots. You cannot convince normal people of shit like that.

4) You are over-estimating the power of manipulation. People are smarter than you think they are. Granted they are also dumber then I think they are, but the happy middle has proven sufficient so far to negate the manipulation problem.

I can see idiots using AI to make ads and do other Candidate Manager type jobs.

I can also see a few idiots using AI to decide how to vote. But:
Straight Party voters will not use AI in the general election.
Less involved party members may use it in the Primary, but the motivated will know who to vote for and ignore AI.

Most independents who do not care will not vote.
Independents who are motivated will know who to vote for and ignore AI.

In other words, I see AI as having a minimal effect among those that will vote but who are not very motivated. Maybe 1-2%

That may affect close elections, but not the big stuff.

Spot on, well said.

Also his family is invested in these zany ventures and 'can't' lose out.

Making them part of the MIC ensures endless graft.

Ted Postol has a good analysis of the Patriot PAC-3 and shows how the vendor has failed to tell the truth about their systems for decades while collecting endless taxpayer funds based on the lies.

Soldiers die, we get poor, they get rich. Zoomers aren't having any of it.

There's nothing wrong with doing it that way. That's just making the data more available. As long as it's making things better and/or cheaper for the customer, it's positive. Nothing is preventing anyone else doing the same.

Paying for priority access to the pipe is the problem.

I mean, really. How many "force"s are we going to end up with ?

Not even clear whether this "Force" is going to support/defend AI or defend us from AI.

Which is probably the point. He wants to sound like he is doing something without actually telling us what he is doing.

That way he can declare it a success no matter what happens.

Microsoft was always trying to take over. At that point they were pushing .NET as the official way to make new applications. Unlike Windows Mobile they weren't stupid enough to deprecate all other methods, so they didn't destroy themselves completely... alas.

Short answer is No, they don't. That said, I agree with everything you said about coal and it is a problem. I'd add that the brine from fracking for gas also contains radioactive particles and is used to damp down dirt roads for dust control. Both are a huge problem.

You're 100% right about that. These are naturally occurring isotopes which are supposed to be in the ground where nature put them. I agree that the coal industry should also receive the same scrutiny that the Nuclear industry does for controlling these materials.

You really have to understand what's going on with all the scare mongering. If OpenAI or Anthropic really wanted to control AI better they could stop their IPO plans, they could stop development of the aspects of AI they are most concerned with...but they aren't and they haven't. It's full steam ahead.

There's a lot of motivation to ARTIFICIALLY inflate demand. Demand for their AI models, ironically to secure systems from their AI models...or at least be aware of the holes.

Also they (Anthropic & OpenAI) WANT AI regulation but more to stifle competition and to shape the regulation in ways that benefit them. It's not because of "oh our AI is so scary we may be stopped" I mean they are not stopping themselves.

There's also controlling the narrative. It's not that AI spend is out of control and the debt mountains are becoming an even greater risk it's more suitable for them to claim that "Oh look AI is out of control we need to
slow down - ever heard of companies wanting to launch their IPO also saying they should slow down? (Unless the IPO plans aren't going so well innit OpenAI?) - hint; it's not because ausr they are so concerned about security. Their AI hacking stuff is free publicity.

Also, more directly related to the article - security is still security. "Man breaks into door factory by breaking a door" isn't some kind of special achievement or concerning outcome.

Crime is still crime, even if it's easy. The real takeaway is that if these companies make such great security (AI) tools why is their security not better?

...and yeah they need better doors, cameras, monitoring etc. Why don't they have Senty bots like proper AI security companies? -That's right, they are not a security company. Just because you can make explosives doesn't make you an expert in defensive warfare...

Did you forget how to read halfway through my comment?

...Modern ejector seats cause spinal injuries from which full recovery is "unusual". Smashing the spines of pilots might not be the most effective way to boost morale.

$22,000 per hour. The F35 will be nearer $42,000 per hour. These are under-estimates, as they do not include price hikes, crashes that close businesses, crashing into businesses, crashing into heavily-populated sports centres, etc.

Wow, a whole game engine?

A lot more than that uses C#, but C# didn't take over, which of course is what Microsoft wanted. But it was never going to happen for many many reasons. That's why Microsoft has to use the EEE strategy, which at least is somewhat successful for them. Their ability to use it is waning as they become less relevant, but they remain hugely influential due to their massive installed base so they can still fuck things up pretty good and will likely be able to for decades yet.