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.

Middle-East involves plenty of mountainous areas, and the reason many of those are arid is because water, ahem, flows down.

Also in a flat dry desert one can replace pumping water up with raising heavy things up. I think. More wear though.

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.

Exactly, it’s a tool to whitewash decisions. A machine that seemingly does not exactly what it should do. A way to shake off responsibility.

And that it won’t ever work right is its best trait for this purpose. They’ll be able to blame every transgression or wrong where they are caught on an error in the system, and get away with the rest.

At least unless it’s legally equated to using Tarot cards for making decisions affecting lives. That should disqualify the fiend further as a completely inadequate human being, not absolve them of responsibility.

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.

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.

Ah. I’ve read of a legal process describing a real life attempt at anarcho-communism, ended with a few murders and the bosses of the settlement doing drugs trade.

So maybe it’s not at all about political ideologies, just about lacking people of proper qualifications in their experiment.

…what?

Rephrasing for the slower types - you’re not an authority on what libertarianism is in the real world. I have my own experience to judge by.

Also have you read “a libertarian walks into a bear”?

No, I don’t even know what it is and I suspect nothing of value was lost.

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

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

Keep them informed, of course they care about your opinion, especially seeing how anyplace else in the world where such things were introduced there were successful revolutions and people doing that ended up in jail. Oops.

In your specific situation maybe. Even in mine maybe.

My sister made me responsible for a dog (not that I’m against that). And also since then I learned that letting cats roam is not very good for the nature.

I might get a cat in the future, though.

That’s not what libertarianism means in practice. In the real world it’s always “I don’t want to pay for other people, even if that means defunding the fire department so my house burns down”.

No, in the real world nothing is always what you’d want to claim.

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.

but because they would personally rather not date a horrible person.

That’s not what women consider when choosing dates. Even the nicest (as a person) women.

They consider safety, reliability, how fun or not the person is, everything, but that everything is more practical than moral. Especially since evaluating someone by moral criteria from the first glance is an almost impossible task. Since women are in bigger danger from making mistakes, they usually know that.

Even when they share stupid posts from dating apps or whatever, the focus is on stupidity and awkwardness, not on someone being a douche, because honestly sex is not like other spheres of life and a woman being like “sorry, below 2 meter tall is not for me, and also I like guys with blue eyes and a car” is pretty normal, which, well, in other circumstances is being a douche.

And the proportion of good and bad people among men and women is the same, a reminder in case someone forgot this, ahem.

I don’t think this has much to do with the conservative\liberal category at all.

More like vulnerable\healthy, or insecure\content. The vulnerable and insecure parts of population in our time and situation might be more likely to feel conservative, but in essence this is not important.

I mean, OK, somewhere around 50s there were plenty of stats how women actually strongly prefer conservative men, while in average more men were liberal than conservative. Today this seems to be reverted.

The ideologies are secondary, just if a man talks too much of their ideology to a potential date, they need some therapy first, and if a man can’t manage some tact about their ideology when that correlates with misogyny, they are not trying hard enough to get that date, and if both are wrong but the other side wants to kill them with fire for their mind having been touched with that impure abomination of thought, then probably the other side needs some therapy. And - I know it’s hard to consider, but maybe, - some people are just not meant for each other, there’s that.