The phenomenon of "rich getting richer" is characteristic of all free markets during times of economic health. It's an easy thing to demonize but simple practical realities make this inescapable.

At its essence, acquiring wealth requires making investments (which could include building businesses just as much as buying ones that already exist). Making such investments requires capital. People who don't have any can maybe get a business loan, but that puts a harsh upper limit on how much they can earn from the investment. Wealthy people have a lot more that they can invest, and so they stand to make a lot more from their investments.

Wealth is THE ladder to attaining wealth. Ordinary jobs are just a means of keeping bread on the table while building initial capital to get in on the investing. Some specialist jobs can pay pretty well but not well enough to make the kind of money that we associate with the super rich.

The thing is, if we take away the option to "get richer," then people who have capital won't invest it, which means they won't be creating jobs or delivering value, which leads to the downward spiral of unemployment, deflation, and economic collapse (Exactly like what we saw throughout the 1930s). So if we treat "the rich getting richer" as some sort of problem that needs to be solved, we risk breaking the backbone of the economy, and pushing nearly everyone into poverty.

We could possibly remove some of the legal loopholes that allow the super-rich to skip out on taxes, but that is supremely hard to do since the super rich hold tremendous political power, and can independently lobby such attempts into oblivion. Even under democratic presidents, such efforts get no traction.

So for now, "the rich getting richer" isn't really a sign of economic mismanagement so much as "standard operating procedure" for a functioning free market.

If eliminating homicide was the only effect the cameras had, I would consider it. But the cameras also enable all kinds of harmful abuse, as has been reported many times right here on slashdot.

Most crime, including violent crime, is a consequence of poverty driving people to desperation. Maybe we could find other ways of bringing that down. Like better education for the poorest areas and other forms of assistance that get people working again and eliminate the desperation. It might not be easy, but it's surely better than making ourselves so extremely vulnerable to the kinds of abuses that mass surveillance enables.

You seem to have confused my post with someone else's. Specifically:

"but other systems are worse so you should be happy with what we have"

I never said nor implied "you should be happy with what we have."

criticizing the current system and calling for change is the equivalent of lobbying for some other system

I never said nor implied that calling for any change is lobbying for some other system.

You're making a number of assumptions

No I'm not, you are reading into my post a whole lot of things that I didn't say and don't agree with.

First you are assuming that the system you have is the system you think it is.

What does this even mean? Are you trying to say that America isn't actually a Capitalism? Without some elaboration, your statement doesn't make any sense.

Second you are assuming that it cannot be made better or changed any way,

No I am not! I absolutely think that we can and should perpetually monitor and modify it as needs arise.

Third, you are assuming that the system you have today is the same system you had 10, 20, 100, or 200 years ago.

No I am not. Where in the world are you even getting this? A huge number of economic changes have happened over the past 200 years. I know this as well as anyone.

For an increasing percentage of Americans, life is getting worse and worse financially...

Your final paragraph is a total topic change seemingly stated as an argument. Or something. All I did was answer a specific question from rsilvergun. It wasn't my intention to write an essay on how we solve the issues related to wealth inequality in America.

"Socialism" is a broad word that refers to an entire family of different systems. It's not "one thing," and there isn't a single definition for it. There is just a loose group of common elements shared by all the different things that share the label, the main one being collective control over the means of production. (see here for more info).

So it isn't reasonable to say that this is "the best system" without specifying which version you are referring to and citing specific places that have fully implemented it for a long time and show signs of sustainable thriving.

Incidentally, Capitalism is, at its essence, "private ownership of the means of production" (which is to say, people can own businesses). If you allow this, then what you have is Capitalism (possibly with other regulations on the side). If you don't allow this, then what you have is not capitalism. Maybe you were thinking of allowing private ownership of some businesses but not others? Or something else?

If capitalism can't even solve something this fucking simple what is even the point?

"The point" is that it's the best system we have, despite its problems.

The alternatives have, historically, led to mass starvation and bloody revolutions in relatively short order. This will predictably happen again if they are attempted, because they violate human nature too strongly.

Be that as it may, technological advancement has always been the game-changer. If anything stands any kind of chance at enabling humans to thrive, sustainably, under a communist system, it will be labor automation (including and especially AI).

How 'bout if I buy now and pay after I die?

I am not a subscriber.

I buy maybe one or two things a year, only if I have to. I am only one tiny notch above giving nothing. You think there is no gain at all in significant abstinence from potential spending?

Absolutist thinking doesn't work well in the real world.

I, for one, am doing almost as much as you are. I didn't cancel my Amazon account because once in a while it does happen that I need something they have and can't get it (legally) by other means. But at every opportunity I shop around and buy from independent shops, even if it costs more, just to avoid sending the money to Amazon. This practice is in response to the many evil things Amazon is known for apart from this new revelation about book shredding.

I hope we are part of a growing trend.

The incentive to use AI to generate content and then pass it off as human-generated content is very strong. Especially right now. There is real money in the ability to lie about this, and so people absolutely want to. Many won't admit it in these terms, but the incentives are objective realities and that's all anyone needs to know in order to predict human behavior in aggregate.

Further, this watermarking does not solve the problem. It just means that people who want to deceive will simply have to use different models instead. Such models will come along one way or another; demand for them will ensure it. Tools will also surface that can detect and remove these watermarks, with varying degrees of success, to neuter the feature. It's an arms race that guarantees the intention behind this move will utterly fail.

The AI law that requires this was drafted by people who didn't think this through. It is in their nature to think that regulation can solve every problem. Enforceability is a factor too, and this law is basically dead on arrival on that front.

sounds like the plots of a cheap SF movie.

Corporate executives often send similar messages to the droves of people they are laying off whenever they merge with another corporation. They tell everyone that the move is some sort of "greater good" and so everyone losing their job should be happy about how much better everything is getting for everyone else. They sometimes go so far as to imply that one is being unenlightened and selfish for being upset about losing their only income stream.

It's easy to say that when you are one of the ones at the top who receives only benefits. The ones who are wondering how they are going to keep their families fed, however, tend to react badly to this utter lack of empathy for their situation.

People might be willing to endure change and uncertainty for a technology that comes with great promise. But those same people will not be so eager to endure unemployment and starvation due to a technology that benefits primarily the wealthy elite. Saying the words "this benefits everyone" will not convince those who can no longer pay the rent.

They shouldn't be trying such a desperate solution without trying chlorox and ivermectin first.

Just don't leave the country after you participate.

For that matter, you may suffer remote retaliation even if you stay home. I would leave this to the military or other government branch.

Also there is the question of legality, government operation or not. It sounds to me like vigilante justice. And countries who like their anti-American cybercriminals will certainly treat it as illegal. (Hence the advice not to leave the country.)

We certainly need a way to stop cybercrime, international or otherwise. But this doesn't strike me as a good way to go about it.

Finally a prediction: in the not too distant future, one or more offshoots from this will turn into unmanageable domestic criminal organizations.

Even Batman's job is threatened by AI.

It's just ET trying to phone home. Probably dialed the wrong number.