I don't think that very many people are getting a free ride. I'm sure it happens but it's not common.
I do think there are a lot of people, like the OP, who think people should be. They view the structure of modern society and the lack of free rides as something that "boomer, petite-bourgeoise types" have imposed on us, rather than a reflection of underlying realities.
I think there should be free rides for a lot of circumstances tbh. Like, I want children to be clothed, housed, fed, educated, and exposed to minimal trauma or workplace/economy pressure. I want anyone too disabled to work to also be clothed, housed, fed, educated to the degree possible depending on their disability... I want single moms to not worry about that stuff either... I want 70+ y/o folks to not feel pressured to be in the workforce so they can leave leadership opportunities to younger folks... None of this has to do with some characterization of people that are against those things I just think we disagree
> I want single moms to not worry about that stuff either
Uh, that's like 20% of households with children, or 25% of children (plus another 5% are raised by some other guardian, so likely also a welfare situation). That's again where we're getting into unrealistic territory (not to mention the terrible incentive). Across all of your groups, you're basically saying half the population should be taken care of by the other half.
A more pressing issue is why are a quarter of children raised by single parents? Even if they were completely taken care of economically, that's still a disaster.
Against what things? The US government spends over 2 trillion dollars each year providing resources to elderly and disabled people through the Social Security and Medicare programs. I don't think "free ride" is exactly the right way to phrase this - we live in a society, we're obligated to take care of those who can't take care of themselves - but basically nobody in the modern US argues that old people should starve if their nest egg isn't big enough. The debates are about precisely how generous the funding should be and what tradeoffs we should make to obtain additional funding that may be required.
I can, but I can also find problems with all the analogies offered by AI apologists.
To me it's not the human in the loop that's weak, it's programming tools that fail to create and utilize bandwidth in the human/computer interaction cycle. Look at how much raw UX bandwidth people can show off when they're pushed to the limits! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki9EeaF4MLI
I just think the people selling the idea that AI will outstrip people's abilities to express themselves haven't actually considered what the practical constrictions on self-expression are and whether or not the limits we experience in practice are really the limits of human expressive capability.
If we're at the limits of expressive capability, the only improvements will come from replacing humans. If not, we may be able to win quite a lot of ground back just by building better instruments. ...that's why I'm working on replacing git
Check out Three Felonies a Day by Silvergate. The writing is poor and it’s one of the only sources that dares suggest that the Enron executives were victims but regardless, there are points relevant to exactly what you’re asking about.
As you should, but he has other points worth considering for sure.
The OP was asking about if justice is important. It is not (according to Silvergate). Conviction rate is important and prosecution offers deals that essentially cannot be refused in exchange for a guilty plea.
I'm currently running qwen and gemma models in my homelab and using five different Chinese model families in the per-token/sub plans
I trust the open models which can be poked and prodded over the closed models that are having inputs and outputs manipulated, or flat out refusing legitimate requests
model family diversity in your workflows is important, regardless of open or closed
Having those sent to fight in a war being the ones to decide if the war should be fought was on of the major points in General Butler’s 1935 book War is a Racket
I used to think this is a good idea. However, the reality is when you join the military it should be reasonable assumption you are going to be sent somewhere to actually fight at some point.
My proposed alternative would be, when you sign up for the military, you are presented with a list of "regions" in which you are willing to be deployed in a combat role, with pay/benefits scaling accordingly the more regions (and more "in demand" regions) you are willing to be deployed. So you could potentially ahve a group that would not fight in the Middle East but would fight in the Pacific, etc. Of course you can't have too many declining service in too many reasons, but if it starts to get expensive to find recruits willing to fight in a given region thats a clear sign somethings amiss with popular sentiment.
> Butler, a retired Marine Corps major general, testified under oath that wealthy businessmen were plotting to create a fascist veterans' organization with him as its leader and use it in a coup d'état to overthrow Roosevelt.
reply