I’m more about separation of addressing data and data model from addressing services and service model for storing and processing it, to make those uniform, because in uniformity lies efficiency and redundancy and ability to switch service models, and uniformity inside proprietary services is already achieved, so in this case uniformity works for the people.

I mean, that’s probably what you meant, I’m being this specific to fight my own distractions and fuzziness of thought.

Well, in the Soviet example everything was government.

And governments seem to be so excited by the prospects of this “AI” so it’s pretty clear that it’s still their desire most of all.

EDIT: On telegraph and Panama you are right (btw, it’s bloody weird that where it sounds like canal in my language it’s usually channel in English, but in the particular case of Panama it’s not), but they might perceive this as a similarly important direction. Remember how in 20s and 30s “colonization of space” was dreamed about with new settlements supporting new power bases, mining for resources and growing on Mars and Venus, FTL travel to Sirius, all that. There are some very cool things in Soviet stagnation - those pictures of the future lived longer than in the West against scientific knowledge. So, back to the subject, - “AI” they want to reach is the thing that will allow to generate knowledge and designs like a production line makes chocolate bars. If that is made, the value of intelligent individuals will be tremendously reduced, or so they think. At least of the individuals on the “autistic” side, but not on the “psychopathic” side, because the latter will run things. It’s literally a “quantity vs quality” evolutionary battle inside human kinds of diversity, all the distractions around us and the legal mechanisms being fuzzied and undone also fit here. So - for the record, I think quality is on our side even if I’m distracted right now, and sheer quantity thrown at the task doesn’t solve complexity of such magnitude, it’s a fundamental problem.

This comment doesn’t add anything to the discussion, go fuck yourself

You mean when the bubble bursts and there are lots of people who worked on this available on the job market?

I’d expect them to be big data specialists, mostly knowledgeable in Python and matrix operations, narrow optimizations needed there, and not very competitive for other typical tech specialties.

They’ll just have to become data analysts, assistants in labs working on things like genome analysis, and so on. Perhaps medical RnD will get a boost due to all the willing slaves, LOL.

They were smart, those oiled fish-eating goatfuckers. So maybe yes, that - and also sortition and ostracism.

Transatlantic telegraph, I think, was very expensive, or Panama channel projects. Before they were finished to any useful degree.

In this particular case - I don’t think it’s more expensive than Soviet attempts at turning Kazakh steppe into agricultural land, let alone all the space and defense projects.

It’s an ideology-driven effort all right - an idea that you can create an inherently totalitarian technology. Probably caused by the popular (in the 90s and early 00s) belief that the Internet is inherently anti-totalitarian, so there’s a need to compensate. Both are wrong.

Buddy, you’re not a normal person and nothing in this conversation says I’m a racist.

You’re an idiot.

as with most of the things people complain about with AI, the problem isn’t the technology, it’s capitalism. This is done intentionally in search of profits.

So in our hypothetical people’s republic of united Earth your personal LLM assistant is not going to assist you in suicide, and isn’t even going to send a notification someplace that you have such thoughts, which is certainly not going to affect your reliability rating, chances to find a decent job, accommodations (less value - less need to keep you in order) and so on? Or, in case of meth, just about that, which means you’re fired and at best put to a rehab, how efficient it’ll be, - well, how efficient does it have to be? In case you have no leverage and a bureaucratic machine does.

There are options other than “capitalism” and “happy”.

I can imagine one - maintaining adversarial interop with proprietary systems. Like a self-adjusting connector for Facebook for some multi-protocol chat client. Or if there’s going to be a Usenet-like system with global identities of users and posts, a mapping of Facebook to that. Siloed services don’t expose identifiers and are not indexed, but that’s with our current possibilities. People do use them and do know with whom they are interacting, so it’s possible to make an AI-assisted scraper that would expose Facebook like a newsgroup to that.

Ah. Profitable. I dunno.

No it doesn’t. People have all kinds of perceptions of words. Get used to it, nobody is going to follow your whim.

I’ve used it as an argument for libertarianism initially, because direct democracy is kinda impractical (thought me back then, LOL), but having grown up a bit I see the need for big militaries and in general synchronous pooling of resources, which libertarian models are notoriously not very good at.

But right now things just as impractical as direct democracy are implemented everywhere, so times have changed.

Their kind never leaves the chat, it’s a professional habit

Nah, a logical OR in their favor is not how democracy should work.

Somebody can’t tell the difference between their own identity and which identities the humanity as a whole needs. Probably.

libertarians have neither

I would say that an ideology based on non-violence, choice and responsibility, with those being impossible to delegate, is exactly about having a heart and a brain at least potentially, unlike the rest.

In any case people who, I think, could be interested in dating me (maybe they were so strongly hinting at something else, but being autistic and very shy and lacking willpower, I’ll never know) were of all kinds of political views. Some of those were even glad to hear about the libertarian kind of opinions. But importantly that wasn’t the subject of our interactions.

So don’t mix that American normalized intolerance with how women feel generally, please. Women are, ahem, as diverse as men.

Frugal tech idea and degrowth are more capitalist than a handful of monopolies owning you in every orifice and billing you for it.

If by “capitalism” we don’t mean paleo-industrialism of XIX-century aristocrats with monocles and child labor. If we do mean the “free market with protections for property, rights, safety and anti-monopoly regulations yadda-yadda” moderate-normal-classical model.

And they will, except the value created is not from somewhere else.

It’s not this, it’s that you don’t actually have democracy when all your representatives are from a small pool of career politicians. That pool can be (mostly) groomed and bought long before getting a chance to be elected anyplace. It can also be threatened. And compromised in fucking children or murdering prostitutes. All kinds of stuff.

Suppose you have a direct democracy element, then you have to buy\threaten the majority, and this won’t be a secret. And threatening the majority is very hard.

Here you can do all these things without ever getting a feedback. It’s important to create feedbacks everywhere, if a system doesn’t give feedback, then you don’t know anything about how it really works.

He’s a successful result of it, I think.

(BTW, if he manages to build his desired bioreactor, I think it would be nice if he managed to process a few of the bullies before it getting blown up like a death star)

At some point I loved the kind of jokes based in his ideologies, about bioreactors and such.

And - the emotion behind this kind of thought is very important. It’s not worse for anarchist and humanist thought than it is for the fascist kind.

Thought experiments are necessary. In the “good old times” such thought experiments as quoted here were normal for many sci-fi series.

The technologies (many of them) to make this are here. What would you do to find the least inhuman way they’ll be used? Not doing anything is not an option - someone will use them to their ideology’s advantage.

My idea at some point was that if we can’t prevent surveillance and miniaturization and automation to the degree it’s a failed endeavor to try to preserve privacy and security against those, then we should at least create a panopticon society, so that those Yarvin’s “delegates” were as visible for the rest of us as the rest of us for them. Suppose the “nothing to hide” norm is here - and we are already losing against it, just silently. What can we do to avoid such a hellish and degenerate end of history as he describes?

It’s a bit like with nukes, you can’t (well, 50 years ago you couldn’t) reasonably well protect against another’s nuke, but you can balance it with your own.

Dunno, I once got told that you can use the word if you’re black, LOL =\

And if I’d use it to address a bunch of friends whose ancestors weren’t slaves and who are not black, I think this wouldn’t be an insult. If there’s a black person nearby, I won’t risk it having a different effect though.