That’s already been going to the wrong people for decades now.
The least drastic solution would be something like UBI, where a lot of people would be miserable, but at least will be able to put food on the table. (In case you’ve seen The Expanse series, I imagine that something like the part where Bobbie asks for directions on Earth).
A more drastic solution would be to not tie the worth of people to the amount of work they do or the amount of wealth they have.
deleted by creator
Also, this recent classic: I will fucking piledrive you if you mention AI again was really illuminating.
Ah yes, that’s the difference. Thanks!
But then they’re drinking irradiated water, no?
Unless it’s really easy to remove the radiation safely, this doesn’t seem like the right solution.
Sadly not :(
Exactly, permissive licenses such as MIT allow for other people to do a rugpull and change the deal (pray I don’t alter it any further). With open source licenses the community can just fork.
That’s why I always pick AGPL for my projects. Then I can be certain that the code can be freed from greedy hands, and the actual users get all the value of the effort I put in.
VC funding really is making a deal with the devil, because you suddenly have a huge amount of cash, so the startup starts living large (hire more devs, run on expensive cloud infrastructure). But sooner or later they want their money back, plus interest; and few services are profitable, let alone that profitable. So the only thing that startups are usually capable of is to squeeze their users for all they’re worth.
Take a look at all the big startups and see:
Companies need to pay that back and then some.
And don’t forget that VC’s see this as a perpetual investment, so your revenue must grow year after year, even if you’ve saturated the market.
If you’ll pardon the pun,
This feels like a god-tier shitpost
You’re welcome!
Wow, who would have thought?
It seems the AI hype is shrinking (or at least slowing down), since people are more and more critical of it: intellectual property, workers rights, power consumption, climate impacts, usefulness and more.
If you want more reading, I recommend these:
I can’t recommend Ed Zitron’s blog enough: Where’s your Ed at
He did an interview with Adam Conover a month ago, which was also really interesting.
The other blog I highly recommend is The Luddite, e.g. Why is there an AI hype?
Username checks out 🏴☠️
I will also never buy a spaceship /j
They’re making a new browser engine from scratch in an open way, absolutely amazing!
I do have several questions:
Why would they use BSD instead of GPL? If you care about open-source so much, why would you make it possible for a company to run away with your fancy new engine?
Why are they creating a new browser, when even firefox has to struggle to keep some semblance of market share? I get that not every project needs to aim to be “the biggest”, and that even a smaller project (in terms of users), can be fun. It’s just that writing a browser engine that can handle the modern web seems like an almost Sisyphean task; which makes me wonder what their motivation(?) is.
Why the FLOSS are they using closed-source proprietary discord as their main communication channel?
To quote the post more specifically:
Even as our species destroys its only home, we assume that the solutions to climate change must lie in technology, without stopping to examine the role that this very attitude has played in the crisis.
This is so deeply ingrained in our social consciousness that, when there is a new impressive technology, we assume that it must be here to solve one of our big problems. As the AI hype quickens the pace of our ecological devastation, we’re so dazzled by the technology that there is actual debate in supposedly serious publications as to whether AI is going to save us from climate change, despite all evidence pointing to the contrary.
I see you point; but not even 200 years ago the people couldn’t imagine most people working in other “industries” than agriculture.
Historically, most people worked in agriculture. (I’m not sure of the percentage, but it was >80% IIRC, but we can take a low estimate at 50%).
Nowadays less than 5% of the world population works in agriculture, due to increases in automation (machinery that can plow and harvest), and better understanding of the process (more efficient use of land).
While some of that turned out to be bad for the environment (who knew biodiversity is good, actually?), it did free up most of the population to do other things.
I hope it’s not “AI” that will automate the future (because of the huge energy costs to the environment), but automation more generally could help us free more time for passionate pursuits.
Jobs like software engineer didn’t even exist a century ago, and who knows what kind of new jobs will be created in the next 100?