I think you're right that some of that tech is likely near.
Keynes thought the same thing 100 years ago. The reasons I think it didn't happen are 1, that the market will price in the new value accordingly, so there is still a need to work to get what is valuable, and 2, that people need something useful to do.
I think it's the second point that will be most interesting this time around, and it's been one of the reasons for social problems in the west. For a lot of young people especially, it's really hard to be useful, whether employed or not, and causes a lot of rebellion and misery.
This time round, that problem might be much worse or much better, due to the technology. I'm not sure.
@zagrebbi@ArtemisConsort I think there's a maxim that even small lies or strategic framing can end up causing huge problems in unexpected ways. One must eventually acknowledge the truth or be exploited by the lie.
The truth may be too hard but the alternative is impossible.
@kunley_drukpa Does this theory have much evidence? I don't know the history but surely it was either realpolitik against a waning rival (Ottomans) or an opportunity to reduce Muslim control in Europe?
@cremieuxrecueil I also don't get the desire for higher immigration to support an aging population. Immigration necessarily biases the population older. If we need support now for an aging population, we definitely will need even more in a few decades, due explicitly to immigration.
In 2017 NYU held a mock debate featuring a male “Hillary” and a female “Trump,” each told to mimic the exact words and mannerisms from one of their debates, in order to prove this. Instead the obviously very liberal audience just loved lady Trump and hated male Clinton.
I think sometimes people learn to argue because it allows them to talk to someone. Like how journalists write clickbait to get views. In both cases it makes them feel important but both are very unhealthy. The only response that works is no response. Ignore.
@zagrebbi Ok, but the most likely reason I see for that correlation is that where survival is harder, the institution of marriage is more important.
What's your reasoning?
@JillFilipovic You might be right here, but it seems strange that they need to be sober enough to read what she's thinking, but she doesn't. Like they need to take responsibility for her decisions but she doesn't.
There's being a gentleman and there's the law.
@GildingTod85955@MaxNordau He said similar, minus the negative framing;
"[The Jews] have a way of making the desert bloom ... The Arabs, with all their dignity and grace, are primarily the children of the desert [and] the desert lands do not become reclaimed while the Arab control is complete over them."
It would appear Churchill did not say this. The book is a 1989 book by David Fromkin. It would appear he did not say this either.
Churchill seems to have been positive of the Rutenberg plan to provide hydro-electricity from the Jordan river, but the project wasn't completed for another 10 years, so he couldn't have known the outcome. It appears to have been a successful British mandate project for that period, with Zionist funding, but was destroyed by both sides in the Arab Israeli war in 1948.
@wrathofgnon@cremieuxrecueil One of the few I do know!
If I'm standing somewhere, and there's a tree over there, the azimuth is the angle between North and the tree, from me.
There's a more general definition, but it's basically just a special case of an angle.
I am surprised I agree with Pinker here. I'd usually assume in any disagreement Alexander would be right, but there IS a strange paranoia here (maybe even guilt-driven), of someone out of touch with humanity.
Technology, rather than AI specifically, has posed such risks, ever since before Easter Island.
Intelligent, responsible, stable people and societies are the best antidote.
Maybe AI will help with that. Maybe it won't.
@dante321321321@Smirkley Population-wise, that's quite a lot of data to remove as "outliers". I don't think you can justify that without others reasons.