Scientists argue that the indiscriminate use of Earth’s resources by humans has led to environmental effects, ranging from biodiversity loss to climate change.
Motherfuckers will find it easier to imagine genociding half of humanity than ending capitalism.
Cool. You can “say that”. But that doesn’t happen. People have kids.
Come up with one idea or policy that actually results in people having less children? Because that’s what the comment you replied to is saying. They are talking about the inevitable policies that come from the “just have less” ideas.
The idea is pointless if it just lives in your head. Would be great if everyone that read this comment gave me $1. But no one’s gonna do that unless I actually had a reason for them to. The reasons to place on people to have less children either don’t work or are human rights violations.
You sound like the dumb “smart guy” that says “we could have world peace if everyone just smoked weed everyday”.
You don’t solve something by coming up with a solution with no means of reaching it. Hell, it’s not really a solution, it’s just a conclusion. It’s why the “population problem” is so good for propaganda. It redirects the problem and distracts stupid people that haven’t actually thought through how that would work.
The plan here is women’s education and access to contraceptives. These 2 things very consistently cause a significant decline in fertility rates. To the point that leaders across the globe are shitting their pants over it.
Consider that ~50% of births globally are from unplanned pregnancies. Prevention of those can do a lot of heavy lifting.
According to me, the wrong kind of people are the chuds, billionaires, the tech broligarchs and Neo Nazis and maga chuds and other far right extremists
Absolutely! Famously non capitalist countries have no capability of funding studies. Nope. Hell, we’d never have gotten the first satellite or first person into space without capitalism! Everything good comes from capitalism! And everything bad, yeah, it’s socialism. And if it’s REALLY bad, it’s communism.
I was under the impression non capitalist countries never existed after its invention. At least, thats what I’m told by communists any time I criticize a “communist” country.
Communism is, by definition, “a classless, moneyless, stateless society”.
When people say “no communist countries have existed” this is what they mean. Because that’s not ever been achieved.
There are countries that are run by communist parties (China). But these are not countries that have “obtained Communism”. You are confused because you never looked up the definition of a communist society.
For example, China is a country run by the Chinese Communist Party under a state structure of Socialism (with Chinese characteristics).
Since you don’t understand basic definitions I doubt that you’re criticisms of “communist countries” were very insightful.
What do you mean? I’m pretty dumb so typing slowly would help. If good things happen it can be attributed to communist leadership but if bad things happen its still capitalisms fault? Cuz that’s what it sounds like.
Economist Richard Wolff has a lot of material on YouTube that explains the differences between Capitalism and Socialism as a mode of production, in addition to how this relates to how China’s economy differs from those like America. Assuming you are genuinely interested in learning more
I read one of his books when I was in college. It had to have been “Democracy at Work”, based on the dates of his publications. I strongly believe he frames idealistic, unrealistic arguments. Each premise I’ve heard presented also depends solely on all members of society being highly altruistic, especially those given the discretion to regulate. He also tends to completely ignore the consistant abuse of power and individual consequence associated with every iteration of attempted communism. Including current regimes. Granted, you could argue that’s an issue with hierarchical structures. Something I think must exist to an extent. I’m not a total free market guy at all. I think a balance of socialist legislature and open market would lead to the best quality of life for the largest amount of humans. Specifically, comprehensive healthcare, housing, education and access to clean food and water. All should be available at little to no cost. I don’t see that being a pie in the sky impossiblity, like trying to force implementation of communism. I found far more agreeable information in “Road to Serfdom” by Hayek. It’s also completely possible for communist groups to exist within capitalist states. The opposite is not possible. Individual choice isn’t a luxury afforded.
Strange, because reading this sounds like you don’t even understand what the mode of production or the contradictions fundamental to capitalism are. I find it hard to believe you’ve read or listened to his works but to each their own
Genocide is unneeded. Population levels decline naturally as people urbanize. Just keep moving people into cities and industrializing farming and the problem will solve itself.
Not with capitalism. Look at countries that do not take in many immigrants. South Korea and Japan are the results of what you’re talking about.
It’s not just about industrialization. The exploitation of labor under capitalism still requires bodies to build its alter. The contradictions of capitalism are the primary problem. Value comes from labor. The profits of capital come from labor. They don’t want “less people”. They just want you to hate other workers and see them as “the problem”.
Not at all. AI is primarily a tool for domestic surveillance and war. AI cannot produce surplus value to be extracted for profit. They aren’t trying to replace workers with AI. At least not in the long term.
Maybe it’s a fantasy but if they could replace humans with machines that never bargained and went on holiday, they would in a heartbeat. And that’s what they want to do. Maybe they will fail, maybe the technology will develop. It can do many things today that it couldn’t so a few years ago. It’s already solved more difficult mathematical proofs than any human alive today for example.
Yeah, that’s not true. The math proofs it has solved are not “more difficult than any solved by a living person”. Many of the proofs AI has solved are corner case conditions that are not being actively worked on by mathematicians. In a trivial example. Image a problem like:
x = n + 25
AI says, hey, let’s assume n=3.
AI solved the proof that 3 + 25 = 28.
Then we get an article posted about how AI solved the impossible problem of n + 25
Now, it can be helpful to have these less general proofs solved. It can help mathematicians in creating a more general proof (what they are usually focused on).
But, as far as I’m aware, these are most of the contributions of AI so far in the field of mathematics. You’re falling for the hype around it. It’s mostly filling in gaps for corner cases that are not actively being worked on.
Which makes sense. Because it’s just a text generation algorithm that predicts the most likely characters. It’s using training data for the n = 3 case that it learned from another already solved problem and then injecting it into the unsolved problem. Sometimes is spits out something that makes sense, a human being has to verify it, and then a corner case for mathematical proof is “solved”.
It’s not capable of thinking or rationalizing to anything new. It is filling in gaps in a field of research that is not primarily focused on “gap filling”.
It’s why it’s “having success” in Math but not Physics. Mathematicians focus on general proofs that apply under all conditions. So, the field inevitably has a lot of problems that could be solved by a lot of brute force for specific conditions.
In Physics, scientist are constantly trying to “fill gaps”. They work with real world measurements and observations. Any new “gap” is constantly being tested. AI has no gaps to fill with its brute force way of “thinking”. And it’s completely incapable of coming up with theories or hypothesis on a level a human does.
This is why it’s not solving ground breaking mathematics proofs and why it is mostly useless in replacing humans in the scientific process. Because it isn’t actually thinking.
Sorry, rant. But this is something that bothers me and you hit a nerve.
Sorry the wording of that phrase was too ambiguous. I meant it had solved more proofs than any human had in their lifetime, and those were at least difficult enough to stump humans for years or decades. I didn’t mean that they were more difficult than proofs that humans had solved, simply that the AI had solved a higher quantity of them, and that, on average, they would be considered difficult. At least difficult enough to stump humans for a pretty good stretch of time.
Sure. That’s fine. But I think you still misunderstand exactly what is being solved in most of those cases. It’s not about quantity. If it was then all mathematicians would be spending time on filling “gaps”. Mathematicians aren’t focused on filling in gaps as a lot of the time that type of brute force work is not meaningful to the field of mathematics. They are focused on proving (or disproving) axioms that are foundational to the field. AI has not proven or disproven any mathematical axiom.
The biggest proof it’s ever provided was for “Erdos Problem”. Which is essentially just a fun “dot placement optimization problem” that Erdos came up with, was never taken too seriously, and was difficult enough that spending time on it in academics would likely get you laughed at.
It’s formal proof yields almost nothing to the field.
On top of that, it was “solved” by an AI math startup with closed source software. There is literally no confirmation that it was AI solving it organically or if the mathematicians themselves solved it during developing the AI and saw a means of getting headlines and more capital investment.
Please, be more skeptical. I double majored in Math and CS and have worked in the field for over a decade. There are applications for AI that are helpful. But, right now, people are falling for a lot of the hype and lies that are being pushed around to attract capital investment. You’re not an investor, you can be smarter and more skeptical than that.
In a decade we’re going to have a lot of reflection on this time and the lies being told about the usefulness of AI.
We live in a world where one of the most valued companies in the world pretends it’s AI robots are real and not just being remote operated by a human. You think AI startups aren’t giving credit to AI for the work of humans? They all are. Because it gets them investment.
A mostly fun and non helpful math problem gets solved by a human. The math community enjoys it. Laughs a little at the guy who spent too much of his life solving it. And no one outside the community hears about it.
But if you say “AI did it”. You get millions of dollars in investment.
I don’t have evidence a human solved it. But they also don’t have evidence AI solved it either. And all financial incentives right now are in saying “AI did it”. That is why you should be extremely skeptical of all these things you hear about the capability of AI.
Motherfuckers will find it easier to imagine genociding half of humanity than ending capitalism.
Well, noone needs to get genocide, just stop making more
Oh you mean eugenics and reproductive control. Yea, also genocidal.
Dude, chill.
There is nuance between eugenics and forced births.
Jfc, I’m not castrating anyone, just asking nicely - consider not making more. Maybe 8 billion is plenty.
Probably need to direct this to the people in India and china who hold 1/4 of the worlds population
Cool. You can “say that”. But that doesn’t happen. People have kids.
Come up with one idea or policy that actually results in people having less children? Because that’s what the comment you replied to is saying. They are talking about the inevitable policies that come from the “just have less” ideas.
The idea is pointless if it just lives in your head. Would be great if everyone that read this comment gave me $1. But no one’s gonna do that unless I actually had a reason for them to. The reasons to place on people to have less children either don’t work or are human rights violations.
You sound like the dumb “smart guy” that says “we could have world peace if everyone just smoked weed everyday”.
You don’t solve something by coming up with a solution with no means of reaching it. Hell, it’s not really a solution, it’s just a conclusion. It’s why the “population problem” is so good for propaganda. It redirects the problem and distracts stupid people that haven’t actually thought through how that would work.
The plan here is women’s education and access to contraceptives. These 2 things very consistently cause a significant decline in fertility rates. To the point that leaders across the globe are shitting their pants over it.
Consider that ~50% of births globally are from unplanned pregnancies. Prevention of those can do a lot of heavy lifting.
Lol, what do you think indiscriminate use of resources is? That’s literally capitalism!
Unless you’re an ecofascist neonazi, in which case the same phrase gets interpreted as “use of resources by the wrong kind of people”.
According to me, the wrong kind of people are the chuds, billionaires, the tech broligarchs and Neo Nazis and maga chuds and other far right extremists
So yeah, maybe we should kill those people
Capitalism is what paid for them to do the study in the first place.
Absolutely! Famously non capitalist countries have no capability of funding studies. Nope. Hell, we’d never have gotten the first satellite or first person into space without capitalism! Everything good comes from capitalism! And everything bad, yeah, it’s socialism. And if it’s REALLY bad, it’s communism.
I was under the impression non capitalist countries never existed after its invention. At least, thats what I’m told by communists any time I criticize a “communist” country.
Communism is, by definition, “a classless, moneyless, stateless society”.
When people say “no communist countries have existed” this is what they mean. Because that’s not ever been achieved.
There are countries that are run by communist parties (China). But these are not countries that have “obtained Communism”. You are confused because you never looked up the definition of a communist society.
For example, China is a country run by the Chinese Communist Party under a state structure of Socialism (with Chinese characteristics).
Since you don’t understand basic definitions I doubt that you’re criticisms of “communist countries” were very insightful.
What do you mean? I’m pretty dumb so typing slowly would help. If good things happen it can be attributed to communist leadership but if bad things happen its still capitalisms fault? Cuz that’s what it sounds like.
Economist Richard Wolff has a lot of material on YouTube that explains the differences between Capitalism and Socialism as a mode of production, in addition to how this relates to how China’s economy differs from those like America. Assuming you are genuinely interested in learning more
I read one of his books when I was in college. It had to have been “Democracy at Work”, based on the dates of his publications. I strongly believe he frames idealistic, unrealistic arguments. Each premise I’ve heard presented also depends solely on all members of society being highly altruistic, especially those given the discretion to regulate. He also tends to completely ignore the consistant abuse of power and individual consequence associated with every iteration of attempted communism. Including current regimes. Granted, you could argue that’s an issue with hierarchical structures. Something I think must exist to an extent. I’m not a total free market guy at all. I think a balance of socialist legislature and open market would lead to the best quality of life for the largest amount of humans. Specifically, comprehensive healthcare, housing, education and access to clean food and water. All should be available at little to no cost. I don’t see that being a pie in the sky impossiblity, like trying to force implementation of communism. I found far more agreeable information in “Road to Serfdom” by Hayek. It’s also completely possible for communist groups to exist within capitalist states. The opposite is not possible. Individual choice isn’t a luxury afforded.
Strange, because reading this sounds like you don’t even understand what the mode of production or the contradictions fundamental to capitalism are. I find it hard to believe you’ve read or listened to his works but to each their own
Genocide is unneeded. Population levels decline naturally as people urbanize. Just keep moving people into cities and industrializing farming and the problem will solve itself.
Not with capitalism. Look at countries that do not take in many immigrants. South Korea and Japan are the results of what you’re talking about.
It’s not just about industrialization. The exploitation of labor under capitalism still requires bodies to build its alter. The contradictions of capitalism are the primary problem. Value comes from labor. The profits of capital come from labor. They don’t want “less people”. They just want you to hate other workers and see them as “the problem”.
They will get less labor whether they want it or not. They are banking on being able to fill it in with AI.
Not at all. AI is primarily a tool for domestic surveillance and war. AI cannot produce surplus value to be extracted for profit. They aren’t trying to replace workers with AI. At least not in the long term.
Maybe it’s a fantasy but if they could replace humans with machines that never bargained and went on holiday, they would in a heartbeat. And that’s what they want to do. Maybe they will fail, maybe the technology will develop. It can do many things today that it couldn’t so a few years ago. It’s already solved more difficult mathematical proofs than any human alive today for example.
Yeah, that’s not true. The math proofs it has solved are not “more difficult than any solved by a living person”. Many of the proofs AI has solved are corner case conditions that are not being actively worked on by mathematicians. In a trivial example. Image a problem like:
x = n + 25AI says, hey, let’s assume n=3.
AI solved the proof that
3 + 25 = 28.Then we get an article posted about how AI solved the impossible problem of
n + 25Now, it can be helpful to have these less general proofs solved. It can help mathematicians in creating a more general proof (what they are usually focused on).
But, as far as I’m aware, these are most of the contributions of AI so far in the field of mathematics. You’re falling for the hype around it. It’s mostly filling in gaps for corner cases that are not actively being worked on.
Which makes sense. Because it’s just a text generation algorithm that predicts the most likely characters. It’s using training data for the
n = 3case that it learned from another already solved problem and then injecting it into the unsolved problem. Sometimes is spits out something that makes sense, a human being has to verify it, and then a corner case for mathematical proof is “solved”.It’s not capable of thinking or rationalizing to anything new. It is filling in gaps in a field of research that is not primarily focused on “gap filling”.
It’s why it’s “having success” in Math but not Physics. Mathematicians focus on general proofs that apply under all conditions. So, the field inevitably has a lot of problems that could be solved by a lot of brute force for specific conditions.
In Physics, scientist are constantly trying to “fill gaps”. They work with real world measurements and observations. Any new “gap” is constantly being tested. AI has no gaps to fill with its brute force way of “thinking”. And it’s completely incapable of coming up with theories or hypothesis on a level a human does.
This is why it’s not solving ground breaking mathematics proofs and why it is mostly useless in replacing humans in the scientific process. Because it isn’t actually thinking.
Sorry, rant. But this is something that bothers me and you hit a nerve.
Sorry the wording of that phrase was too ambiguous. I meant it had solved more proofs than any human had in their lifetime, and those were at least difficult enough to stump humans for years or decades. I didn’t mean that they were more difficult than proofs that humans had solved, simply that the AI had solved a higher quantity of them, and that, on average, they would be considered difficult. At least difficult enough to stump humans for a pretty good stretch of time.
Sure. That’s fine. But I think you still misunderstand exactly what is being solved in most of those cases. It’s not about quantity. If it was then all mathematicians would be spending time on filling “gaps”. Mathematicians aren’t focused on filling in gaps as a lot of the time that type of brute force work is not meaningful to the field of mathematics. They are focused on proving (or disproving) axioms that are foundational to the field. AI has not proven or disproven any mathematical axiom.
The biggest proof it’s ever provided was for “Erdos Problem”. Which is essentially just a fun “dot placement optimization problem” that Erdos came up with, was never taken too seriously, and was difficult enough that spending time on it in academics would likely get you laughed at.
It’s formal proof yields almost nothing to the field.
On top of that, it was “solved” by an AI math startup with closed source software. There is literally no confirmation that it was AI solving it organically or if the mathematicians themselves solved it during developing the AI and saw a means of getting headlines and more capital investment.
Please, be more skeptical. I double majored in Math and CS and have worked in the field for over a decade. There are applications for AI that are helpful. But, right now, people are falling for a lot of the hype and lies that are being pushed around to attract capital investment. You’re not an investor, you can be smarter and more skeptical than that.
In a decade we’re going to have a lot of reflection on this time and the lies being told about the usefulness of AI.
We live in a world where one of the most valued companies in the world pretends it’s AI robots are real and not just being remote operated by a human. You think AI startups aren’t giving credit to AI for the work of humans? They all are. Because it gets them investment.
A mostly fun and non helpful math problem gets solved by a human. The math community enjoys it. Laughs a little at the guy who spent too much of his life solving it. And no one outside the community hears about it.
But if you say “AI did it”. You get millions of dollars in investment.
I don’t have evidence a human solved it. But they also don’t have evidence AI solved it either. And all financial incentives right now are in saying “AI did it”. That is why you should be extremely skeptical of all these things you hear about the capability of AI.