Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A UBI necessitated by mass automation only has a single possible outcome, enslavement of the masses in a dystopian society. A society which will eventually crumble, killing billions. Either because the ruling elite who run the machines will actively cull the population or because the masses successfully revolt but then starve as they lack the ability to maintain the machines. Both result in mankind reverting back to the stone age.

The only way to avoid this nightmare scenario is to outlaw automation beyond a certain degree so that a functional economy can be maintained. An economy where jobs for wages are still available and certain types of innovation are stymied because it will destroy society.

You have to keep people working for wages because otherwise there will be no incentive for the fewer workers you do need to actually do their job. If 90% of people don't have to work and have all their needs, and most of their wants, fulfilled for free, then the 10% of people who do need to work to provide for all of society are going to refuse to work. They'll refuse to work unless the benefit is high enough, which would almost certainly require the unemployed to have relatively wretched living standards to give enough incentive. Lack of comfort is more incentivizing than just "better" comfort.

Lets say a non-worker is given a 55" TV as a base standard, but if he was a worker he'd get a 75" TV. A worker isn't going to have much incentive to do his job. yeah, a 75" TV is nicer than a 55" TV, but the downside is you can't use that TV whenever you want. You still gotta go to work. It would be simpler and more convenient to simply elect not to work and get your slightly worse TV without having to work for it. The only way to really incentivize the guy to work would be to not give non-workers TVs at all. Apply the same logic to food, vehicles, etc... Non-workers get only basic subsistence, balanced dietary requirements. Good tasting food would have to be denied, they'd have to be housed in deliberately uncomfortable houses, just to give the few workers some actual incentives. So you end up with some really bad inequality because its the only way to actually incentivize the fewer and fewer workers to keep society running, which alienates the non-workers.

A normal minimal automation capitalist economy will still have those inequalities, but it will be to a far lower degree than an automated dystopia.

Exactly how you ban/regulate how much automation is allowed is a difficult task in itself, but that will be the only way to move forward without causing total collapse in the future.

Automation doesn't destroy jobs overall though, even within the context of what is considered a job today (something which earns money). Not at our current stage. It raises the skill level of jobs though- the new work created is higher skill than those jobs lost. Automation and (true) AIs are also not connected- you don't need AIs to achieve an extremely high level of automation, only if you want to completely remove human agency from the production pipeline and turn is into pets, I suppose.

The bigger issue, as I see it, is that automation undermines the very capitalist system that has spawned it- capitalism relies on scarcity and growth into new markets, automation increases production and decreases scarcity. The internet is the ultimate expression of this, because it has made information essentially useless under capitalist principles (data can be replicated infinitely for an almost trivial price nowadays- only the data storage has a cost). Any capitalist value to modern data is artificially created through regulation. Of course, data has huge value in other ways.

Because automation reduces scarcity, it also reduces profit per unit overall. Capitalism has traditionally coped with this by expanding into new markets... but where are these new markets now? The last expansion was into the burgeoning middle class ofvthe developing world alongside the former Eastern Bloc after the Cold War ended.

So we have a dual issue of reducing profit and a lack of new markets. The only real option is to heavily regulate the internet and monetise basically every transaction in life- probably to the extent of turning favours into financial transactions. It has happened to some degree already, but I don't think society will accept the level of monetisation required to sustain a new boom, especially as alternate systems already exist* and they will only grow as monetisation becomes more intrusive.

At the moment, a social democracy capitalism-socialism mix is the best system we have available, but the cracks are only going to grow within the system and society needs a new alternative to cope with the digital age.

Someone also mentioned innovation and how it relates to capitalism on the previous page, I think that deserves more discussion because I think it is key to developing a postcapitalist society as innovation is something that occurs on a societal level independently of capitalism, despites the reliance of capitalism of essentially stealing/hoarding innovation spawned from others to generate profit. I think any relatively non-dystopian society needs to find a way to allow society as a whole to profit from the innovation it generates, not just those with the resources to howrd the benefits. I think the internet will be key to this.

*Like open source vs commercial software- people will switch if commercial software becomes too expensive/intrusive to use.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The only way to avoid this nightmare scenario is to outlaw automation beyond a certain degree so that a functional economy can be maintained.

Good luck with that. Good luck defining "too much automation", good luck keeping people happy in busywork jobs that exist for the sole purpose of being inefficient, good luck keeping everyone from cheating when they have every incentive to make more profit by automating more than their honest competition, and good luck keeping all of your industry from moving to China or wherever is willing to allow automation.

All depends on how the automation affects prices.

Imagine if you will, fully automated farming. That is possible in the not-too-distant-future.

Other than technicians on hand to keep the machines ticking over, that's fewer people, and fewer costs.

Does that mean food prices drop? Or will the current incarnation of capitalism win out, and it becomes a case 'We Can Charge What We Want'?

As a global society, we've seen similar stuff in the past. Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions changed the world for ever. Ever increasing efficiency didn't so much take away jobs, but change what jobs were available, and where.

We may see the same thing here.

What I'm most interested in is what might happen to my job. In theory, it's safe. We work on a 'fair and reasonable' basis, and apply that case to case. When it comes to compensation, its, genuinely, based on human compassion and empathy. If you can't put yourself in the customer's shoes, you're not going to be in the right ballpark. At all.

I've upheld complaints because whilst the argument the consumer raised didn't stand up, I could see that underneath was the true complaint. Can a machine read between the lines and apply experience in that way? Fairly sure that for now, the answer is 'no'.

Can a machine have a gut feeling that something isn't right, and then work back from there to find what got me cortex in a tingle? Probably, arguably certainly, not. Not yet, anyway.

Instead, all they can create at the moment is a pure logic thing. That might help me work faster - but I'd never be tied to it's suggested outcome. That's not our role, and it's never been how we worked.

Consider also the concept of automated financial advice, where a consumer uses a preset programme to be recommended investments and savings.

What if the programming there is blobbed, and hundreds, thousands, possibly tens of thousands of people receive bum advice? Can another machine pick up on that? Possibly not.

Automated, Self-Driving Cars. As discussed at length in the relevant thread, how does one work out liability, and therefore a Fair Outcome, when one also has to consider the backbone programming of the vehicles, whether there was a fault in the sensors, road marking etc?

Can a programme really spot an ambiguous term and condition the way I can? Can it weigh up different takes on specific wording, and pick the bones out in the way I do? Possibly? Possibly not? Perhaps that's another 'not yet'.

So, it looks like my job might be secure. For now. And I'm only, erm....carry the badger, divide by vole...28 years off official state retirement age. So technology may not overtake me in time. What would that mean for my wage? When I can do stuff a machine simply cannot, does that mean my inherent wage value goes up (after all, there are a lot of humans who cannot do what I do). Or would the general desperation for employment mean they can start restricting my wage, because what am I gonna do, go get another job?

Y'all need Louis Althusser.

 Grey Templar wrote:
A UBI necessitated by mass automation only has a single possible outcome, enslavement of the masses in a dystopian society. A society which will eventually crumble, killing billions. Either because the ruling elite who run the machines will actively cull the population or because the masses successfully revolt but then starve as they lack the ability to maintain the machines. Both result in mankind reverting back to the stone age.

The only way to avoid this nightmare scenario is to outlaw automation beyond a certain degree so that a functional economy can be maintained. An economy where jobs for wages are still available and certain types of innovation are stymied because it will destroy society.

You have to keep people working for wages because otherwise there will be no incentive for the fewer workers you do need to actually do their job. If 90% of people don't have to work and have all their needs, and most of their wants, fulfilled for free, then the 10% of people who do need to work to provide for all of society are going to refuse to work. They'll refuse to work unless the benefit is high enough, which would almost certainly require the unemployed to have relatively wretched living standards to give enough incentive. Lack of comfort is more incentivizing than just "better" comfort.

Lets say a non-worker is given a 55" TV as a base standard, but if he was a worker he'd get a 75" TV. A worker isn't going to have much incentive to do his job. yeah, a 75" TV is nicer than a 55" TV, but the downside is you can't use that TV whenever you want. You still gotta go to work. It would be simpler and more convenient to simply elect not to work and get your slightly worse TV without having to work for it. The only way to really incentivize the guy to work would be to not give non-workers TVs at all. Apply the same logic to food, vehicles, etc... Non-workers get only basic subsistence, balanced dietary requirements. Good tasting food would have to be denied, they'd have to be housed in deliberately uncomfortable houses, just to give the few workers some actual incentives. So you end up with some really bad inequality because its the only way to actually incentivize the fewer and fewer workers to keep society running, which alienates the non-workers.

A normal minimal automation capitalist economy will still have those inequalities, but it will be to a far lower degree than an automated dystopia.

Exactly how you ban/regulate how much automation is allowed is a difficult task in itself, but that will be the only way to move forward without causing total collapse in the future.

I have to disagree, forcing people to work at pointless, useless jobs for small wages would be slavery in and of itself. And it would collapse or explode under the anger of people knowing they are being forced to do make work.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mack Reynolds wrote some books dealing with an automated future where most people lived on a UBI, but the government made free education available so people had the option of working their way up.

I think we would have to add in some form of population limits, like discouraging people having too many children.

No, we wouldn't.

The Earth is not over-populated; resources are allocated inefficiently.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
No, we wouldn't.

The Earth is not over-populated; resources are allocated inefficiently.

Lolwut? C02 levels rising, climate changing, and you think the only problem is in the allocation? We'd be much better off with 10% of our current population and therefore 10% of our resource use and C02 emissions at the same standard of living.

 Cryptek Keeper wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
A UBI necessitated by mass automation only has a single possible outcome, enslavement of the masses in a dystopian society. A society which will eventually crumble, killing billions. Either because the ruling elite who run the machines will actively cull the population or because the masses successfully revolt but then starve as they lack the ability to maintain the machines. Both result in mankind reverting back to the stone age.

The only way to avoid this nightmare scenario is to outlaw automation beyond a certain degree so that a functional economy can be maintained. An economy where jobs for wages are still available and certain types of innovation are stymied because it will destroy society.

You have to keep people working for wages because otherwise there will be no incentive for the fewer workers you do need to actually do their job. If 90% of people don't have to work and have all their needs, and most of their wants, fulfilled for free, then the 10% of people who do need to work to provide for all of society are going to refuse to work. They'll refuse to work unless the benefit is high enough, which would almost certainly require the unemployed to have relatively wretched living standards to give enough incentive. Lack of comfort is more incentivizing than just "better" comfort.

Lets say a non-worker is given a 55" TV as a base standard, but if he was a worker he'd get a 75" TV. A worker isn't going to have much incentive to do his job. yeah, a 75" TV is nicer than a 55" TV, but the downside is you can't use that TV whenever you want. You still gotta go to work. It would be simpler and more convenient to simply elect not to work and get your slightly worse TV without having to work for it. The only way to really incentivize the guy to work would be to not give non-workers TVs at all. Apply the same logic to food, vehicles, etc... Non-workers get only basic subsistence, balanced dietary requirements. Good tasting food would have to be denied, they'd have to be housed in deliberately uncomfortable houses, just to give the few workers some actual incentives. So you end up with some really bad inequality because its the only way to actually incentivize the fewer and fewer workers to keep society running, which alienates the non-workers.

A normal minimal automation capitalist economy will still have those inequalities, but it will be to a far lower degree than an automated dystopia.

Exactly how you ban/regulate how much automation is allowed is a difficult task in itself, but that will be the only way to move forward without causing total collapse in the future.

I have to disagree, forcing people to work at pointless, useless jobs for small wages would be slavery in and of itself. And it would collapse or explode under the anger of people knowing they are being forced to do make work.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mack Reynolds wrote some books dealing with an automated future where most people lived on a UBI, but the government made free education available so people had the option of working their way up.

I think we would have to add in some form of population limits, like discouraging people having too many children.

They wouldn’t be pointless jobs. They’d be jobs we have now. The jobs would be protected from being replaced with robots is all.

UBI doesn’t work for the same reason perpetual motion doesn’t. If everyone gets free money from the government, the government has to tax someone to pay for it, but there is nobody to tax. Even if there are ‘rich’ people who own the machines, you couldn’t get enough money from them to pay for your UBI even if you took 100% of their money. Money would have no value in a system where most people were living off handouts. So now more taxes, no more UBI being doled out, and then you’d have complete societal collapse.

Free Education to become one of the operators doesn’t work either. Everybody is going to want to become one of the rich, but most will be denied. So they either stop bothering or become angry at being denied. Both are bad situations.

 Grey Templar wrote:
A UBI necessitated by mass automation only has a single possible outcome, enslavement of the masses in a dystopian society. A society which will eventually crumble, killing billions. Either because the ruling elite who run the machines will actively cull the population or because the masses successfully revolt but then starve as they lack the ability to maintain the machines. Both result in mankind reverting back to the stone age.

The only way to avoid this nightmare scenario is to outlaw automation beyond a certain degree so that a functional economy can be maintained. An economy where jobs for wages are still available and certain types of innovation are stymied because it will destroy society.

You have to keep people working for wages because otherwise there will be no incentive for the fewer workers you do need to actually do their job. If 90% of people don't have to work and have all their needs, and most of their wants, fulfilled for free, then the 10% of people who do need to work to provide for all of society are going to refuse to work. They'll refuse to work unless the benefit is high enough, which would almost certainly require the unemployed to have relatively wretched living standards to give enough incentive. Lack of comfort is more incentivizing than just "better" comfort.

Lets say a non-worker is given a 55" TV as a base standard, but if he was a worker he'd get a 75" TV. A worker isn't going to have much incentive to do his job. yeah, a 75" TV is nicer than a 55" TV, but the downside is you can't use that TV whenever you want. You still gotta go to work. It would be simpler and more convenient to simply elect not to work and get your slightly worse TV without having to work for it. The only way to really incentivize the guy to work would be to not give non-workers TVs at all. Apply the same logic to food, vehicles, etc... Non-workers get only basic subsistence, balanced dietary requirements. Good tasting food would have to be denied, they'd have to be housed in deliberately uncomfortable houses, just to give the few workers some actual incentives. So you end up with some really bad inequality because its the only way to actually incentivize the fewer and fewer workers to keep society running, which alienates the non-workers.

A normal minimal automation capitalist economy will still have those inequalities, but it will be to a far lower degree than an automated dystopia.

Exactly how you ban/regulate how much automation is allowed is a difficult task in itself, but that will be the only way to move forward without causing total collapse in the future.

You really can't do what you are suggesting. You can not outlaw progress so our economic system doesn't collapse.

 Grey Templar wrote:

UBI doesn’t work for the same reason perpetual motion doesn’t. If everyone gets free money from the government, the government has to tax someone to pay for it, but there is nobody to tax. Even if there are ‘rich’ people who own the machines, you couldn’t get enough money from them to pay for your UBI even if you took 100% of their money. Money would have no value in a system where most people were living off handouts. So now more taxes, no more UBI being doled out, and then you’d have complete societal collapse.

Giving $20,000 to 300,000,000 people is 6 trillion dollars. Current USgov revenue is just shy of 4 trillion, so there would definitely need to be a huge spike in taxation to pull it off - government revenues would have to go up by 150%, minus any eliminated redundancies.

We have to hope that automation reduces the cost of everything by a substantial degree to manage a UBI future. If the cost of food, lodging and energy drops to 10% of current rates, then UBI could drop to $2000 and 600 billion dollars in increased tax revenue would actually be manageable.

Basically, the benefits of AI and automation have to be enormous to enable UBI to be feasible. And labor costs are still only a small fraction of the costs of anything - material costs and transport are still huge, though automation could help tackle that, but we need cheap energy to pull it off.

You can't have a UBI future without fusion, AI and pervasive automation. Hopefully we can get fusion first, as cheap energy will allow us to do a lot of very necessary things to fight climate change before we have to deal with an AI/automation job apocalypse.

 John Prins wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

UBI doesn’t work for the same reason perpetual motion doesn’t. If everyone gets free money from the government, the government has to tax someone to pay for it, but there is nobody to tax. Even if there are ‘rich’ people who own the machines, you couldn’t get enough money from them to pay for your UBI even if you took 100% of their money. Money would have no value in a system where most people were living off handouts. So now more taxes, no more UBI being doled out, and then you’d have complete societal collapse.

Giving $20,000 to 300,000,000 people is 6 trillion dollars. Current USgov revenue is just shy of 4 trillion, so there would definitely need to be a huge spike in taxation to pull it off - government revenues would have to go up by 150%, minus any eliminated redundancies.

We have to hope that automation reduces the cost of everything by a substantial degree to manage a UBI future. If the cost of food, lodging and energy drops to 10% of current rates, then UBI could drop to $2000 and 600 billion dollars in increased tax revenue would actually be manageable.

Basically, the benefits of AI and automation have to be enormous to enable UBI to be feasible. And labor costs are still only a small fraction of the costs of anything - material costs and transport are still huge, though automation could help tackle that, but we need cheap energy to pull it off.

You can't have a UBI future without fusion, AI and pervasive automation. Hopefully we can get fusion first, as cheap energy will allow us to do a lot of very necessary things to fight climate change before we have to deal with an AI/automation job apocalypse.

We will have to redefine things like "cost" is a world where labor is free and production literally never stops. The dollar value of things now has basically no relation to what it would be in this kind of a society. The real question to me is not about how much "money" people should get and where it comes from (Productivity will go up massively). The question is who decides how much everyone gets, Will some people get more, how do producers benefit from giving people the supplies they need.

I imagine a system in which work/innovation and invention/community service - gives you reward (essentially profit) but all your basic needs are covered. Not going into to much detail - I imagine that this could all be managed by private industry like our system does in the US currently. Nothing would change just the dollar values and relationships for profit lines. Everything could fall into place at this point.

You don't need fusion to get there ether. The energy is literally falling out of the sky.

 Xenomancers wrote:

We will have to redefine things like "cost" is a world where labor is free and production literally never stops. The dollar value of things now has basically no relation to what it would be in this kind of a society. The real question to me is not about how much "money" people should get and where it comes from (Productivity will go up massively). The question is who decides how much everyone gets, Will some people get more, how do producers benefit from giving people the supplies they need.

Agreed, there will have to be a redefinition of money and compensation. There are several basic human needs that automation can't really replace - human interaction is one, another is personal fulfillment, which most people get through being gainfully employed, but gainful employment will be going away for many, and it needs a replacement.

So, personal interaction and assistance will still be of value. For people on dakkadakka, for example, teaching people to paint miniatures would be a viable job - it provides social interaction and enables the student to gain personal fulfillment. Of course, under such a system reputation becomes very important, as the better teachers command better rates, and you're into a reputation based economy.

I imagine a system in which work/innovation and invention/community service - gives you reward (essentially profit) but all your basic needs are covered. Not going into to much detail - I imagine that this could all be managed by private industry like our system does in the US currently. Nothing would change just the dollar values and relationships for profit lines. Everything could fall into place at this point.

Pretty much, though I thing managing the system by private industry is unlikely to be viable.

You don't need fusion to get there ether. The energy is literally falling out of the sky.

Solar and other renewable energies won't be able to handle the energy requirements of 24/7 manufacturing and shipping product, pervasive AI computing and climate reclamation/resource recycling, unless there's a huge drop in the standard of living of everyone in the developed world.

Most of the world is grossly underdeveloped and will require massive energy investments to bring up to a western standard of living. China's been doing this through massive investment in coal fired generators, though they have been investing heavily in solar as well, because their ecology can't sustain all the coal burning they're doing.

No country will be able to sustain its energy economy on renewable energy once electric vehicles become the standard, not without 100% transition to mass transit and probably the complete elimination of road-based shipping of goods.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
In before the lock. Nothing we can do. The big tech corporations wont change, and the idiot masses don't care so long as things just keep getting more and more convenient, they'll trade more and more of their personal data, and then it's only a matter of time before they're trading their civil liberties for more convenience. If you point out the dangers of the system you're accused of being a luddite. Were all just along for the ride.

I believe this but am a bit more positive than that.

But when it comes to the crunch government will step in. There is enough pressure already that someone could stand on a ticket of 'remove tech corporate power blocks'. Ultimately Facebook and Google can't do much if they are regulated and disenfranchised, they are powerful now because governmnent is not interested in censure, there are too many short term deals and benefits.
But if say to give an extreme example a western government banned Facebook, Zuckerberg could do nothing about that but whine, which would be most entertaining anyway. Yes the tech moguls are powerful people, but their power is on licence not by force. Zuckerberg, Besos et al lack true state power, if a sovereign government said we will no longer trade with you or tolerate your tech interference there is relatively little they can do when the banhammer falls.

fail post.

 Orlanth wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
In before the lock. Nothing we can do. The big tech corporations wont change, and the idiot masses don't care so long as things just keep getting more and more convenient, they'll trade more and more of their personal data, and then it's only a matter of time before they're trading their civil liberties for more convenience. If you point out the dangers of the system you're accused of being a luddite. Were all just along for the ride.

I believe this but am a bit more positive than that.

But when it comes to the crunch government will step in. There is enough pressure already that someone could stand on a ticket of 'remove tech corporate power blocks'. Ultimately Facebook and Google can't do much if they are regulated and disenfranchised, they are powerful now because governmnent is not interested in censure, there are too many short term deals and benefits.
But if say to give an extreme example a western government banned Facebook, Zuckerberg could do nothing about that but whine, which would be most entertaining anyway. Yes the tech moguls are powerful people, but their power is on licence not by force. Zuckerberg, Besos et al lack true state power, if a sovereign government said we will no longer trade with you or tolerate your tech interference there is relatively little they can do when the banhammer falls.

Sure, if you have a totalitarian state with no concern for rights or due process or any of that then of course that state could damage any business they target. But I don't see why you think that would be a good thing.

I am against the idea of UBI as anything the government gives you it can then take away at will and the idea of getting a population hooked on such a thing will produce generational unemployed as jobseekers (unemployment benefits for our US cousins) has done but on a larger scale, I grew up and lived below the poverty line in the UK for more than half my life before I dragged myself out of it and saw first hand how bad people are, education, unemployment benefits and free housing has caused major issues in the UK that no one will admit to or even talk about.

Of course.... we could all always learn to code

 Formosa wrote:
I am against the idea of UBI as anything the government gives you it can then take away at will and the idea of getting a population hooked on such a thing will produce generational unemployed as jobseekers (unemployment benefits for our US cousins) has done but on a larger scale, I grew up and lived below the poverty line in the UK for more than half my life before I dragged myself out of it and saw first hand how bad people are, education, unemployment benefits and free housing has caused major issues in the UK that no one will admit to or even talk about.

And what's the alternative, leaving millions to starve to death because they are no longer employable? We aren't talking about a world where people can opt in to government assistance or work hard to raise themselves out of poverty, the threat of automation is that the majority of the population will be unemployable. It doesn't matter how hard you work if there are only enough jobs for 10% of the population. You either give a basic standard of living to everyone or you accept that you're going to have mass deaths and effectively the end of human civilization.

 Peregrine wrote:
Sure, if you have a totalitarian state with no concern for rights or due process or any of that then of course that state could damage any business they target. But I don't see why you think that would be a good thing.

I mean, we have anti-trust laws in the states that should have been aimed at google and facebook years ago. But lawmakers in the US are largely entirely too old and removed from society to understand the impact they have. It hardly takes anything more than actual market understanding and regulation.

 Formosa wrote:
I am against the idea of UBI as anything the government gives you it can then take away at will and the idea of getting a population hooked on such a thing will produce generational unemployed as jobseekers (unemployment benefits for our US cousins) has done but on a larger scale, I grew up and lived below the poverty line in the UK for more than half my life before I dragged myself out of it and saw first hand how bad people are, education, unemployment benefits and free housing has caused major issues in the UK that no one will admit to or even talk about.

Of course.... we could all always learn to code

You really have to offer an alternative. Because here is the breakdown of what's coming.

In 20ish years (this number is probably closer to 40 years realistically IMO) 50% of jobs will be taken by robots. No where near that amount of jobs can be created and most people will be unemployable.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
I am against the idea of UBI as anything the government gives you it can then take away at will and the idea of getting a population hooked on such a thing will produce generational unemployed as jobseekers (unemployment benefits for our US cousins) has done but on a larger scale, I grew up and lived below the poverty line in the UK for more than half my life before I dragged myself out of it and saw first hand how bad people are, education, unemployment benefits and free housing has caused major issues in the UK that no one will admit to or even talk about.

Of course.... we could all always learn to code

You really have to offer an alternative. Because here is the breakdown of what's coming.

In 20ish years (this number is probably closer to 40 years realistically IMO) 50% of jobs will be taken by robots. No where near that amount of jobs can be created and most people will be unemployable.

Having played the original deus ex I wonder if the oligarchy might try a "grey death" scenario, a tailored plague meant to wipe out the "surplus population" that is easily in ocularedagainst but the in oculationsare strictly controlled to keep them it of he surplus populations hands. A government might not do that but a group of corporate elites could.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
In before the lock. Nothing we can do. The big tech corporations wont change, and the idiot masses don't care so long as things just keep getting more and more convenient, they'll trade more and more of their personal data, and then it's only a matter of time before they're trading their civil liberties for more convenience. If you point out the dangers of the system you're accused of being a luddite. Were all just along for the ride.

I believe this but am a bit more positive than that.

But when it comes to the crunch government will step in. There is enough pressure already that someone could stand on a ticket of 'remove tech corporate power blocks'. Ultimately Facebook and Google can't do much if they are regulated and disenfranchised, they are powerful now because governmnent is not interested in censure, there are too many short term deals and benefits.
But if say to give an extreme example a western government banned Facebook, Zuckerberg could do nothing about that but whine, which would be most entertaining anyway. Yes the tech moguls are powerful people, but their power is on licence not by force. Zuckerberg, Besos et al lack true state power, if a sovereign government said we will no longer trade with you or tolerate your tech interference there is relatively little they can do when the banhammer falls.

Sure, if you have a totalitarian state with no concern for rights or due process or any of that then of course that state could damage any business they target. But I don't see why you think that would be a good thing.

Actually if a sovereign states government sought to ban a corporation's tooling that was seen negative to society it can do so.
To give a more extreme but similar example: Are you going to argue that we live in a totalitarian state because we don't allow entrepreneurs to sell heroin?
But to go back to Google amazon and Facebook, there are already calls for more heavy regulation or restriction on their use. Cambridge Analytica fallout for example. Governments may be concerned with protectionism, monopolies, tax avoidance, child safety, data theft, lack of corporate legal accountability dissemination of criminal doctrines (terrorism, cartel brokering, paedo rings), discrimination etc etc. These are not future concerns they are concerns now. The Wild west Internet has its opposition.

We already have stirrings to pressure to curtail Amazon, mainly on the grounds that they can heavily undercut competitors by not paying taxes. This not only creates an unfair tax avoidance scenario, but also kills tax paying businesses. Government may act to protect tax paying businesses against this predatory model. This is not current UK policy as the current UK government does not care, but moves on this level are gaining traction amongst the left and elsewhere.

If certain social media or tech giant becomes negative to society yes they can be legally restricted. If things progress to the levels as described as scenario by some of the posters here then making it party policy to ban them, and go to the country for a mandate on those grounds is not only acceptable, it is democracy in progress. Just because some want to place legal restrictions on Facebook, doesnt mean they share ideology with China.

Im honestly expect the government will push for more control over automated industries at the request of the population once the situation starts to dawn on the majority that this could be a massive economic problem.
- if outcome is pro control, most companies will push their automated lines to some 3rd world country and we will have a general status quo for another 20 years.
- if outcome is against then ether A) people literally starts rebelling and something happens or B) government some how gets their gak together and forms some sort of plan to allow people to exist with the increase from productivity from the automation. (living allowance, socialism whatever if food water and housing systems some how are automation top priority) at which point many people may ether be content with the possibility of more jobs in media and the creative works as more people will have free time.. maybe. or those unemployed but still existing people may be discontent with what they have vs what people with jobs or the rich continue to have and something something class wars. ether way its not going to be resolved without some kinda violence thrown in from somewhere.

 Cryptek Keeper wrote:
Having played the original deus ex I wonder if the oligarchy might try a "grey death" scenario, a tailored plague meant to wipe out the "surplus population" that is easily in ocularedagainst but the in oculationsare strictly controlled to keep them it of he surplus populations hands. A government might not do that but a group of corporate elites could.

No. Aside from any moral issues or practical questions about whether or not it's even possible such a thing would be suicidally dangerous. All it takes is one slight miscalculation and the elites kill themselves too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
To give a more extreme but similar example: Are you going to argue that we live in a totalitarian state because we don't allow entrepreneurs to sell heroin?

That is not comparable at all. The government can ban you from selling heroin because there is a clearly established harm from any sales of it and the government has banned it entirely. The government can not decide that search engines are completely acceptable but Google must be shut down because they're too successful. The government can not pick a winner in the market and forcibly shut down the competition.

But to go back to Google amazon and Facebook, there are already calls for more heavy regulation or restriction on their use. Cambridge Analytica fallout for example. Governments may be concerned with protectionism, monopolies, tax avoidance, child safety, data theft, lack of corporate legal accountability dissemination of criminal doctrines (terrorism, cartel brokering, paedo rings), discrimination etc etc. These are not future concerns they are concerns now. The Wild west Internet has its opposition.

You're throwing a mix of things here, some valid and some not. Monopolies are not an issue because no monopoly exists. Discrimination is not an issue because even morally appalling speech is legally protected. Criminal activity would be an issue, but there's an extremely high burden to prove that Facebook/Google/etc are knowingly permitting criminal activities and not just being abused by criminals that they are unable to stop, much like the post office does not get shut down because people use it to mail drugs. Data theft is an issue, but the legitimate target of government action is the criminals committing the acts of theft, not the victims. We don't take someone's house away from them because they failed to put up enough security and someone broke in and stole their friend's property.

In short, the things you mention are grounds for deciding, as a customer or user, not to do business with those companies. They are not grounds for the government to arbitrarily shut down a company. Due process is a thing and proof of criminal activity is required before seizing property.

We already have stirrings to pressure to curtail Amazon, mainly on the grounds that they can heavily undercut competitors by not paying taxes. This not only creates an unfair tax avoidance scenario, but also kills tax paying businesses. Government may act to protect tax paying businesses against this predatory model. This is not current UK policy as the current UK government does not care, but moves on this level are gaining traction amongst the left and elsewhere.

Enforcing tax payments is not the same as shutting down a company. The state has a legitimate right to close tax loopholes and ensure that everyone is paying the same taxes, and to punish companies that illegally refuse to pay taxes. The state does not have a legitimate right to create special taxes for one company or to take action against one company for the benefit of its competition just because the competition is struggling to succeed.

Just because some want to place legal restrictions on Facebook, doesnt mean they share ideology with China.

It does when those restrictions come down to " the rule of law and due process, I don't like these companies so shut them down".

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
To give a more extreme but similar example: Are you going to argue that we live in a totalitarian state because we don't allow entrepreneurs to sell heroin?

That is not comparable at all. The government can ban you from selling heroin because there is a clearly established harm from any sales of it and the government has banned it entirely. The government can not decide that search engines are completely acceptable but Google must be shut down because they're too successful. The government can not pick a winner in the market and forcibly shut down the competition.

Have you read anything on the thread?
No western government will shut down Google for being too successful as a search engine. They might shut them down for unregulated AI though.
No western government will shut down Facebook for being popular. They might shut them down for privacy invasion or child safety though.
No western government will shut down Amazon for being rich. They might shut them down for undercutting the competition by 15% across the board by avoiding 22% sales tax.

It is dishonest to suggest that action will be taken against these companies solely on the key success of their core industries. its other things they are alleged to be doing that causes concern.

 Peregrine wrote:

You're throwing a mix of things here, some valid and some not. Monopolies are not an issue because no monopoly exists..

Technically true, but its certainly heading this way. Amazon is killing off most of the high street stores. They are killing off most internet competition also. You can do a lot when you only pay £14 million tax on a multi billion £ industry. And that is just the UK.
Large scale internet suppliers that bypass normal costs, in particular lawful tax create a de facto trade monopoly.

 Peregrine wrote:

Discrimination is not an issue because even morally appalling speech is legally protected. .

Wake up please. There have been multiple concerns at governmental and media level in multiple countries about hate speech on the internet, and what social media is doing about it. There are already attempts at regulation.
I am not asking you to agree with the policies or concerns involved, but it is vain to deny they have occurred.
No I wont provide links, you can do that yourself. Its common knowledge this has been an issue. Just websearch: hate speech social media
Clearly this is an issue. Also hate speech is not protected, arguably not even in America as arrest is possible under certain circumstances. it certainly isn't in Europe. Perhaps European legislators go too far or too skewed in definitions of hatespeech but that is a different discussion.

 Peregrine wrote:

Criminal activity would be an issue, but there's an extremely high burden to prove that Facebook/Google/etc are knowingly permitting criminal activities and not just being abused by criminals that they are unable to stop, much like the post office does not get shut down because people use it to mail drugs .

However when parliamentarians worldwide ask the question 'why arent social media doing enough to remove sexual predators or terrorist gurus from their media'. It becomes relevant. Now sometimes it might not be fair to lay blame at the feet of the social media companies, but the relvance here is in posing if there is an issue. There clearly is because the issue turns up regularly and gains enough political traction that legislators discuss it.

 Peregrine wrote:

Data theft is an issue, but the legitimate target of government action is the criminals committing the acts of theft, not the victims. We don't take someone's house away from them because they failed to put up enough security and someone broke in and stole their friend's property.

Actually in the EU and many other places, can't say for the US, others can comment: It is up to service providers to ensure security of data under thier control. The Uk Data Perotection Act is a good example of this. If a company holds a persons private data they are legally culpable if a criminal gets access to it. This is why Cambridge Analytica was such a big thing, because it wasn't a civil matter in the UK but a criminal one.

 Peregrine wrote:

In short, the things you mention are grounds for deciding, as a customer or user, not to do business with those companies. They are not grounds for the government to arbitrarily shut down a company. Due process is a thing and proof of criminal activity is required before seizing property.

For now, but if legislation is passed as it has then fines can be issued and certain activities banned. It does not take China to pull the plug on Facebook, any sufficiently advanced government can do so if given the excuse.

 Peregrine wrote:

Enforcing tax payments is not the same as shutting down a company. The state has a legitimate right to close tax loopholes and ensure that everyone is paying the same taxes, and to punish companies that illegally refuse to pay taxes. The state does not have a legitimate right to create special taxes for one company or to take action against one company for the benefit of its competition just because the competition is struggling to succeed.

Actually they damn well can. Amazon doesnt pay UK tax. the current people in power do not care. But if other parties rise to power they might say. No tax no trade.
Also other companies can be shut down. Uber was in London. For good reason. Uber might claim it was arbitrary but they non complains with police over rape cases including alleged Uber drivers doest go down well.

 Peregrine wrote:

It does when those restrictions come down to " the rule of law and due process, I don't like these companies so shut them down".

Don't misrepresent the arguments. Its not random Caligula like fiat.
but at a basde level if the actions become regulated and the companies don't comply, they can face censure even ban.

I am not saying there isn't possible restitution but it might require compliance from perviously uncompliant companies.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uber-london-ban-wins-court-appeal-overturn-tfl-revoke-licence-a8418106.html

Uber is a good case study. An international internettaxi company that skirted alongside the boundaries of the law, and bit off more than it could chew. They won back their licence in London, but had to pay costs (indicating they had not actually 'won') and only have a probationary licence. This means Uber has to clean up its act in ordeer to get a provisional licence back. From a company that didn't care for local regulations.

Now Uber is a danger to licenced taxi firms. Even with a temporary licence is regulation catches up and demands safeguards over local accountability that prevent internet freelancing under law then Uber will have to change its business model entirely or close UK operations. A sovereign parliament in any country can pass said legislation for their jurisdiction, internet giants are powerful, but this isn't a cyberpunk society, corporations are not sovereign, and if a people elect a party to power that wants to regulate away the Wild West internet they can do so and rich tech moguls like Besos or Zuckerberg can only watch (and lobby).
Now this might not apply everywhere. A small African country might have to sit and do as its told. But any developed country, even one with a relatively small economy, which regulates will get away with it.

A good case in point is Belgium and their banning of lootboxes. Now Belgium isn't truly a small economy, and its central to the EU so they have a lot of clout. But the Belgians banned lootboxes outright when other government merely censured their use, and censureship meant jack squat to companies like EA, who pretended to listen but continued on as normal. EA howled at the Belgian government, but they had no choice but to comply. It is legislation by a sovereign state, and that still trumps corporate policy. Lootboxes are gone in Belgium and Belgian customers cannot access them.

 Orlanth wrote:
No western government will shut down Google for being too successful as a search engine. They might shut them down for unregulated AI though.
No western government will shut down Facebook for being popular. They might shut them down for privacy invasion or child safety though.
No western government will shut down Amazon for being rich. They might shut them down for undercutting the competition by 15% across the board by avoiding 22% sales tax.

Unregulated AI is purely hypothetical as no such regulations exist, and really no such regulations are justified based on facts. The supposed danger of AI is, for the foreseeable future, purely within the realm of science fiction and should not in any way be used to make policies.

Privacy invasion and child safety are flimsy justifications at best. Do you have any examples of Facebook invading the privacy of people who have not consented to Facebook accessing their "private" life by voluntarily posting stuff on Facebook? Or of how Facebook is a threat to child safety in a way that other online entities are not (and in a way that is not inherent to allowing children to communicate on the internet without parental supervision)?

Technically true, but its certainly heading this way. Amazon is killing off most of the high street stores. They are killing off most internet competition also. You can do a lot when you only pay £14 million tax on a multi billion £ industry. And that is just the UK.
Large scale internet suppliers that bypass normal costs, in particular lawful tax create a de facto trade monopoly.

Alternatively the "high street stores" have an obsolete business model and are dying for good reasons. I don't know how it is in the UK but Amazon has plenty of competition from conventional retail stores in the US.

Also: Amazon sales in the US have sales tax applied.

Wake up please. There have been multiple concerns at governmental and media level in multiple countries about hate speech on the internet, and what social media is doing about it. There are already attempts at regulation.

Shrug. I'm not terribly familiar with politics in your country. Fortunately in the US we have an explicit constitutional ban on such regulations and any attempt at it would be instantly shot down in court. Facebook/Twitter/etc have every right to post Nazi ideology as much as they want, the only question is whether we as users/customers wish to continue doing business with a company that agrees with the Nazis.

Also hate speech is not protected, not even in America.

100% wrong. Hate speech alone is absolutely protected by the US constitution. Speech occurring as part of criminal activity (harassment, inciting violence, libel, etc) is not protected but you are free to say "those {racial slur}s need to be slaves again" all you want. People will just (hopefully) think you're a terrible person and refuse to associate with you.

However when parliamentarians worldwide ask the question 'why arent social media doing enough to remove sexual predators or terrorist gurus from their media'. It becomes relevant. Now sometimes it might not be fair to lay blame at the feet of the social media companies, but the relvance here is in posing if there is an issue. there clearly is.

The question can be asked, but "enough" needs to be clearly defined and not just by the continued presence of people abusing a service for illegal purposes. And if it's going to be applied to Facebook/Twitter/etc then it needs to be applied to everyone. Dating website doesn't do background checks to screen out potential sexual predators? Shut them down. Post office doesn't check mail to make sure it doesn't contain terrorist propaganda? Shut it down. Etc.

Actually in the EU and many other places, can't say for the US, others can comment: It is up to service providers to ensure security of data under thier control. The Uk Data Perotection Act is a good example of this. If a company holds a persons private data they are legally culpable if a criminal gets access to it. This is why Cambridge Analytica was such a big thing, because it wasn't a civil matter in the UK but a criminal one.

Sorry, but that's a ing stupid law if it really works that way. A company should be held liable for data security if they have promised security of that data and been negligent in protecting it, but it is absolutely not reasonable to have a blanket rule that a company holding data is liable for any criminal access. There are potential security breaches where no conceivable action by the holder of that data could prevent access to it so how is it reasonable to hold them criminally liable for it?

Lootboxes are gone in Belgium and Belgian customers cannot access them.

The fact that Belgium successfully abused its power does not make the abuse of power legitimate. There is no justification for making lootboxes illegal, anyone who doesn't like them is always free to not purchase games that have them.

 Peregrine wrote:

Unregulated AI is purely hypothetical as no such regulations exist, and really no such regulations are justified based on facts. The supposed danger of AI is, for the foreseeable future, purely within the realm of science fiction and should not in any way be used to make policies.

Please remember the premise of the thread.
Threatening potential future developments.
AI is not a problem right now, but it might bec come a problem in the near future. Many in the scientific community urge caution, for various reasons and this is already in public discourse.

Some already have taken internal action after unwelcome milestones were passed.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-artificial-intelligence-ai-chatbot-new-language-research-openai-google-a7869706.html

So it might not even be just a future issue after all.

 Peregrine wrote:

Privacy invasion and child safety are flimsy justifications at best.

No it isnt. but lets meet you half way here. I will assume for sake of argument you are right and this is smoke without fire.
Nevertheless if pressure groups lobby for child protection they can reach large scale popular support. Its an evocative issue, legislators can seek to gain popularity by acting on that even if not absolutely necessary.
So even if you are conclusively right that will not be relevant if the public and the politicians think otherwise.

However that being said. privacy intrusion is NOT a 'flimsy jusitification' in the EU. Its stature law.

https://www.bpe.co.uk/services/need/data-protection-the-gdpr/brilliantly-simple-guide-to-the-gdpr/fines-and-penalties/

The above contains a list of fines and penalties for breaches of data protection. So frankly, it doesn't matter if you believe that privacy invasion is a 'flimsy justification', its existing law in the UK and other European countries, complete with guidelines for punishment if convicted. QED.

 Peregrine wrote:

Do you have any examples of Facebook invading the privacy of people who have not consented to Facebook accessing their "private" life by voluntarily posting stuff on Facebook? Or of how Facebook is a threat to child safety in a way that other online entities are not (and in a way that is not inherent to allowing children to communicate on the internet without parental supervision)?

I don't need to. What people post on Facebook is their own concern and Facebook is not liable for things people publically reveal. However Facebook is liable for data they collect and sell to third parties without consent of users.
it was relevant enough that Zuckerberg was summoned before congressional hearing.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/21/opinions/mark-zuckerberg-misled-congress-privacy-nyt-alaimo/index.html

 Peregrine wrote:

Alternatively the "high street stores" have an obsolete business model and are dying for good reasons. I don't know how it is in the UK but Amazon has plenty of competition from conventional retail stores in the US.

Amazon can discount but not the same extent as in the UK, Amazon pays the IRS what it owes. It does not pay British taxes and the UK government has done nothing about this mainly due to issues with reflagging elsewhere in the EU.
.

 Peregrine wrote:

Also: Amazon sales in the US have sales tax applied.

Agreed as above.

 Peregrine wrote:

Shrug. I'm not terribly familiar with politics in your country. Fortunately in the US we have an explicit constitutional ban on such regulations and any attempt at it would be instantly shot down in court. Facebook/Twitter/etc have every right to post Nazi ideology as much as they want, the only question is whether we as users/customers wish to continue doing business with a company that agrees with the Nazis.

This US is not the world. You cant say it doesn't happen because it doesn't happen in 'Murica.
Social media companies are under increased scrutiny and regulation in Europe. It ends up mattering in the US too as often in the data industry it is easier to comply to one set of laws than have a split.. Many of the changes to the way the internet handles data are due to European data rights laws. It was easier to comply globally than try and have one rule for Europe and one for elsewhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation

The changes on what data a company can hold on individuals which IIRC has been actioned even in America is due to EU not US law.

https://www.dpnetwork.org.uk/opinion/gdpr-america-eu-data-protection/

 Peregrine wrote:

Also hate speech is not protected, not even in America.

100% wrong. Hate speech alone is absolutely protected by the US constitution. Speech occurring as part of criminal activity (harassment, inciting violence, libel, etc) is not protected but you are free to say "those {racial slur}s need to be slaves again" all you want. People will just (hopefully) think you're a terrible person and refuse to associate with you.

The first amendment does offer some protection.. However one can still be arrested for incitement.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-virginia-protests-speech-factbox-idUSKCN1AU2E0

 Peregrine wrote:

The question can be asked, but "enough" needs to be clearly defined and not just by the continued presence of people abusing a service for illegal purposes. And if it's going to be applied to Facebook/Twitter/etc then it needs to be applied to everyone. Dating website doesn't do background checks to screen out potential sexual predators? Shut them down. Post office doesn't check mail to make sure it doesn't contain terrorist propaganda? Shut it down. Etc.

Yes and no. Legislation has to be universal to be fair, but enforcement can target known offenders. For the example given above the Belgian anti loot box law was mainly aimed at EA and their practices. However it effects everyone else doing the same thing. It is not discriminatory to initiate legislation because company x is doing unapproved action y. It is also not improper to censure company x at the first legal opportunity for reoccurring offences committed after the enaction of the legislation. There are numerous examples of this. So yes, Facebook does something a government doesn't like the government concerned can regulate and then hammer Facebook for any offence committed after that point, but it also has to also censure other offenders. Law enforcement sees no issue with that..

 Peregrine wrote:

Sorry, but that's a ing stupid law if it really works that way.

Actually it isn't, just you haven't bothered to research why.

 Peregrine wrote:

A company should be held liable for data security if they have promised security of that data and been negligent in protecting it, but it is absolutely not reasonable to have a blanket rule that a company holding data is liable for any criminal access. There are potential security breaches where no conceivable action by the holder of that data could prevent access to it so how is it reasonable to hold them criminally liable for it?

Actually you are talking around yourself. If the data is accessed then there has been negligence in protecting it.
That isn't contradictory in any way. If you are speeding you are negligent in your driving, it is not circumstantial.
Companies have to store data by means approved of by law. These means are robust and normally include access restriction and or encryption. They are an absolute requirement in the EU for storing customer data for online sales transfers for instance. If you want to set up a company that deals with credit card transactions online you must prove your website is able to handle the traffic in accordance with Data Protection legislation before you are licensed to handle monies that way.

it is not a simple case of these are the rules you need to follow now get on with it. It's an involved process you must develop your security and present it for inspection before you have the license to set up online transactions by credit card. Once you have begun this you are responsible for that data, and if it is lost it is negligence on the part of the company or individual responsible for securing that data. This does not imply culpability in the offences for which the stolen data is used unless there is collusion proven in the courts..

 Peregrine wrote:

The fact that Belgium successfully abused its power does not make the abuse of power legitimate. There is no justification for making lootboxes illegal, anyone who doesn't like them is always free to not purchase games that have them.

Explain why the action of the sovereign and lawful government of Belgium legislating a ban on lootboxes is an abuse of power?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43906306


Edit: The worst typos just had to go.

Re: AI: please read your own article. They didn't shut it down because of "unwelcome milestones", they shut it down because it wasn't giving useful data and therefore wasn't worth spending money on. The media blew it up into clickbait "OMG FACEBOOK WAS AFRAID OF THE AI MONSTER THEY MADE AND HAD TO SHUR IT DOWN", but that has nothing to do with reality.

Re:: the rest: as it is going completely off topic I'll just leave it as being glad I dont live in the UK/EU.

 Peregrine wrote:
Re: AI: please read your own article. They didn't shut it down because of "unwelcome milestones", they shut it down because it wasn't giving useful data and therefore wasn't worth spending money on. The media blew it up into clickbait "OMG FACEBOOK WAS AFRAID OF THE AI MONSTER THEY MADE AND HAD TO SHUR IT DOWN", but that has nothing to do with reality.

Re:: the rest: as it is going completely off topic I'll just leave it as being glad I dont live in the UK/EU.

Ayy and we are glad you are over the pond.

Unlawful lootbox ban
LMAO
Sovereignity is a princip you know.

 Peregrine wrote:
Re: AI: please read your own article. They didn't shut it down because of "unwelcome milestones", they shut it down because it wasn't giving useful data and therefore wasn't worth spending money on.

I reread the article linked just now to be fair to your point in case I had missed anything. I hadn't.
The AI was shut down because of 'unwelcome milestones'. Notably invention of their own language in seperation to humanity rather than communicating in a way that facilitates human and AI inter contact.

It was giving useful data though, we know a lot about possible AI language structures from this, and now have samples of non human language. The long repetition of words is indicative of a process and makes sense as computers use looping code, it might be shorter for a computer to say 'had' six times than to apply a number to had. that is truly interesting data and was not lost on Facebook.

 Peregrine wrote:

The media blew it up into clickbait "OMG FACEBOOK WAS AFRAID OF THE AI MONSTER THEY MADE AND HAD TO SHUR IT DOWN", but that has nothing to do with reality.

Some may have done, but I called it 'unwelcome milestones' so clearly you should not apply this hysteria to me.
However I am of the mind that someone in Facebook may have panicked, then recovered their composure later and gave a more rational explanation for termination. So long as ther AI was isolated I beleive that colleciting more AI language data would have been of great use to science. For a start it would give us a heads up in possible xenolinguistics.

 Peregrine wrote:

Re:: the rest: as it is going completely off topic I'll just leave it as being glad I dont live in the UK/EU.

Thankful for highlighting how parochial you are getting. This is about future trends in economics related to emerging technologies. It takes a special form of arrogance to assume that factors that exist outside the US are off topic, as if only factors relevant to Americans were relevant globally. I had hoped that you were getting over this by now. You really need to, the USA is still mighty, but is not a hegemonic power anymore.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Unlawful lootbox ban
LMAO
Sovereignity is a princip you know.

++