"It doesn't just come from thin air! If AI destroys people's ability to earn money, they won't be contributing."

But the productivity still exists, and in capitalism that "earns money". AI doesn't destroy anyone's ability, it replaces it.

You are an idiot.

"One thing engineers learn quickly, is that things rarely work as they should "in theory." "

Another thing engineers know from the very beginning, things never work when "theory" says they won't.

"Many academics don't put their theories into practice, and so never learn that the theories have no substance. This is what I meant when I described "egghead academics.""

He got what you meant the first time, we all did. And talking about theories that have no substance, let's not forget about your "UBI".

"UBI does exactly the opposite."

You mean what you think is "UBI" does the opposite. UBI isn't anything beyond a concept.

"If you get income without doing anything, why on earth would people do anything?"

That tells us about you, not about us.

"They risked their own money to build the AI, so why wouldn't they keep the profits?"

No they didn't. And where did their "own" money come from? And in an AI society, why are you worshipping capitalism?

"That's how business works, those who risk capital to make a business work, reap the rewards if it does work, and they lose their investment if it doesn't work."

But that's not how the American economy works, and that's not how "business" would work in an AI-driven economy.

"There isn't enough productivity, or money, in the world, to "support UBI." "

And odd comment when the concept of AI is effectively unlimited productivity. It's almost as if you understand absolutely nothing.

"Take *all* the rich people's money away, and you still don't have enough to support UBI, not even close. Take all the productivity from AI, and you still don't have enough."

Keep telling everyone what a moron you are. You don't pay for the future with money you "take away" today, and you have no concept of how UBI would even work. It's a "BASIC" income, not a total income. It's an alternative to safety nets as we know them today. Shockingly, people still work even though there is welfare, although I'm certain you don't believe that's true either.

To deliver what supplies? When billionaires own all resources what are new economies based one?

"Eventually, the whole thing grinds to a halt."

Right, because economies are all zero sum games.

"What's to keep them from developing their own economy, separate from the New World Order? Nobody's forcing them to do business with the ultra-rich or the engineers."

Military, police and lack of resources. But why would they want to? Economies are zero sum games, that's your position.

"Your tirades are so pathetic..."

Look who's talking.

"There is no need for immigration for example when humans are costs rather than resources..."

That is because your concepts of "need", "costs" and "resources" are driven by a capitalistic view of society that would no longer work in a "post scarcity" future.

Sometimes slop is a better search.

'...develop a new "theory of the mind" that accounts for humans now equipped with "cognitive amplifier tools,"...'

Why would a theory of the mind include anything external to the body? How can this CEO be so stupid?

Magazines and blogs are very recent human inventions, it's an insult to suggest that reading magazines is not reading because they aren't books. This ignorance reminds me of a Greek literature prof I had back in college (insisted that you weren't a thinker if you weren't good at appreciating greek literature).

You are what you practice to be, if you want to be more diverse then engage in greater diversity. Reading is part of that.

Is reading a Calculus textbook a "private pleasure" or is it simply not reading?

Says someone so functionally illiterate he fails to understand a very clear post. "Literature" in this context means "fiction", otherwise it would not be describes as "private pleasure". You do not have to read fiction in order to read to to be literate.

Experience only matters if you make a new version. Otherwise the experience has no value. The patents are only useful if enforcable, and if they provide defensive value against companies they don't already have defense against, orif the category becomes big enough to leverage against others who do succeed. Seeing as they shut down production, it's unlikely they will create a new version anytime soon. There's not enough demand. They have an extensive patent portfolio, so the defensive value is questionable. The offensive value is also negligible, as they're unlikely to get much out of it given the lack of success in the category. So no, not a good return.

Its useless. It doesn't do anything anyone needs or wants. Which is why VR headsets have failed in the market repeatedly, and at much cheaper pricepoints. That's why it's not a fantastic value- it's no better than existing tech, it doesn't solve a problem, nobody wants the category, and it's priced at nearly 10x the competition. On every front it's the exact opposite of value.

WHat were there expectations? If they were much higher, then it's a disappointment. If it was inline, then it isn't. How much did they spend in R&D on the device? Again, if it was a net loss, it's a disappointment. If it was a profit, it might not be. (A loss might also be ok if it launches a category that becomes successful, but this doesn't seem to be the case here).

Given that they shut down manufacturing, it seems very likely they sold way under expectation and overbuilt capacity. It also seems likely in that case they lost money. Which would make this a disappointment.

"You are an emergent property of your genes...Each of which is in competition with the rest to reproduce."

Each of what? Emergent properties or genes? Citations please.

Maybe you are an "emergent property", I am far more...as is everyone I have ever met.

I do disagree- it's frequently prohibited by the contracts you sign to get the options. It has been for every startup I've ever worked for.

Has been true since any of us have been alive. The difference is the ease in which images can be generated and manipulated now, and the willingness of people to grift.