Get a life and notice the difference between that and reddit.

The rich need some poor who they can lord over to wait on them, so they can fully enjoy their status. Other than that, no.

Reddit ≠ The world

LOL, What? AI is going to be programmed to extract everything it can from the population and give it billionaires.

The base knowledge to build androids has been around a long time, we just didn't have the software for them to do anything interesting.

This seems like part of creating a global society. As we become more interconnected, we'll find they do something better somewhere else, and try to repeat that. It doesn't mean the world has become an echo chamber, only that ideas are no longer as regional as they are individual. Now if someone comes up with a unique idea people in their town don't like, it has a chanced to recognized beyond that. That may end up increasing diversity in many ways.

The difference between this and other historical technological advances is that this is meant to do everything humans can do better and cheaper than humans, not just some things.

>If it gets something wrong/incorrect it doesn't correct itself it has to get reprogrammed by a human.

That's not even accurate. It can realize it's wrong.

Are there any people who can hold a conversation after being raised alone in a dark room?

What motive does a privatized healthcare system have to treat the dying, the disabled, or people too sick to work, who may never recover? Where's the money in that?

Have you ever worked in the private sector? Because they can't handle those things. The belief they can is based on the false idea that people are basically good, honest, and put the public interest above their own greed. That's not how things actually work though.

The incentives are all wrong for the private sector to even attempt to handle those things. They prioritize short term gains and don't consider the long term costs. Government is required to ensure companies don't risk public safety for short term gain, when the incentives set by capitalism encourage them to do so.

Yes, I support the health department inspecting restaurants, if the private sector tried to do that the restaurant owners would pay them to pass even when they should fail. The government can do that effectively because they aren't trying to make money, so they don't have a motive to pass a restaurant that should fail.

There are many things society needs to function where the incentive for profit encourages people to the opposite of what needs to be done. That's where government comes in. In a property functioning capitalist system the government tries to align the interest of the private sector with the public good.

Profit motive and public good aren't aligned by magic as you seem to think. The government is required to keep those things aligned by setting the rules for the private sector and creating incentives to do the right thing. Where that isn't enough to align profit motive and public good, the government runs things themselves, as they run courts, the military, programs to care for the sick and elderly who can't care for themselves.

>I don't understand why you keep asking me about the "real world". I know what the real world is like. I know that the healthcare system is insane, inflation is running rampant, people are being forced to work multiple jobs, etc. But all this bad stuff is happening because of government intervention into the free market.

If you knew about the real world by living in it, you'd see how your theory about the government being the problem is wrong. You would see corporations cutting every corner they can legally get away with because they want to make more money and how others are harmed by that is irrelevant.

If you worked in the real world, you'd know that before the government changed the rules mine owners valued the life of a donkey over a human worker, because they could just find another person to pay without losing much, but they'd have to buy a new donkey.

If you had lived in the real world, you'd be aware just how often regular people rely on government intervention to force others to play fair, or to help them during a crisis that isn't of their own making.

>the big picture is that free-market capitalism creates an abundance of high-quality goods/services at a low price.

Why do you believe that? Not even Adam Smith believed that. He thought government regulation was necessary to prevent monopolies. There is no evidence for this whatsoever.

Based on how people abuse our current system, I think it's more likely most of us would effectively be slaves in a company town if capitalism was completely unregulated.

> Today it wouldn't make sense to go to some dark alley to buy alcohol, because you wouldn't be sure of its purity. So you go to a business that you trust, and you know that the product is pure. That's what would happen with drugs if the government stopped getting involved.

I can go to any legal business to buy alcohol, because they're regulated by the government. There are rules about the purity of alcohol they can sell. Somebody checks they aren't selling alcohol contaminated with methanol, so I don't have to. That somebody is the government.

The government makes sure the food I buy from a grocery store is safe to eat, and isn't contaminated with toxins or pathogens. They regulate restaurants to make sure they uphold food safety standards.

Regulations are written in blood. Most of the regulations you might think are dumb, or common sense, exist because somebody thought they could make a few extra bucks cutting corners, and killed or maimed people doing it.

There are certainly some regulations that are too strict, or unreasonable, but the vast majority of regulations are things closer to making sure there isn't menthol in drinking alcohol, or rat poison in food, than they are like setting the drink age to 21. You just don't think about those regulations because people aren't questioning them.

You think housing will get cheaper if all regulation is removed, and I agree we need to remove a lot of stupid zoning laws. However, I like being able to buy a house, or move into a building, without being a construction engineer, and know the house is safe and won't collapse on me.

You claim you know what the real world is like. How? From what you read or saw on TV? What you've imagined? Or have you actually lived in it? If you haven't fully supported yourself in it, you have no idea.

Why would it make sense to treat sick people with fully privatized healthcare? Maybe if they have some super rich relative who can pay you, but otherwise why would you do it? You'd just trust them to pay once they were well enough to work, if they got well enough to work?

What possible capitalist incentive would there be to treat the sick who are too weak to contribute? Or is your idea of healthcare euthanizing everyone who can't contribute, that doesn't have family to care for them? Or you think people will care for the sick out of the goodness of their heart?

You want to know how a truly free market works? Look at the drug market. People often sell laced drugs that kill people. People kill each other over payment disputes.

Wow. I don't even know where to begin with that level of naive innocence.

Have you ever worked for a living? I'm not talking about a summer job, I mean worked to pay for your own housing, food, transportation, healthcare? You really sound like someone who read about some idealized version of capitalism in a book, but who has otherwise been completely sheltered from the real world.

Let me give you a clue, people are fucking awful. They steal, cheat, and exploit others because they can. The government's job is to protect people from unsafe products, dangerous work environments, and predatory business practices.

You seem like you could use a few lessons from the school of hard knocks, I'll just hope they aren't too difficult.

If it worked like that, prices wouldn't be as high as they are now.

Why? Didn't your parents ever tell you money doesn't grow on trees? Where will these people live?

What makes you think savings from automation will be passed down to consumers? Especially on essential goods like housing.

We now have a plague, much more income inequality, less privacy, unstoppable global warming, and one of the two major US political parties has become openly fascist with the help of constant propaganda. Yes, we have more toys, but the quality of life for the majority has gone down.

>One person's job will be able to support an entire family. Later on, one person's job will be able to support multiple households. And so on and so forth. So, fewer and fewer jobs will be needed in the first place.

This is not how it works. The more desperate people are for the few existing jobs, the less those jobs can get away with paying.

Because some of us have been paying attention over the last 30 years.

They don't think this far ahead.

I don't think you understand the difference. Those things still required humans to run them. Now we're talking a technology that can do everything humans can do.

The reason capitalism works now is that billionaires need workers, so they pay people to work, and those people use the money for things they need.

When they don't need workers anymore, because they can use AI, the vast majority of humans won't have a way to contribute to society well enough to earn a living.

Telling the truth, instead letting people indulge in naive optimism, adds something of value. Once humans are no longer needed because the people with power have machines to do everything for them, they'll leave the rest of us to starve in the streets.

Too many worship billionaires and hate their fellow humans (especially those of another color, religion, sexuality, etc.) to try to do anything to stop it. The hateful morons will stop any attempts to organize to make post-AI capitalism non-genocidal because they'd rather see others suffer, then not suffer themselves.

Billionaires will be winners and the rest of humanity will be losers.

I think it may achieve conscious, but a different kind of conscious to what we experience.