this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2026
33 points (85.1% liked)

Futurology

2872 readers
90 users here now

Futurology: A space for the discussion of the future of us - the human organism, and the relationship we have with the spaces we may inhabit.

I have only two rules for this community:

** Respect the Community.**

** Respect one another.**

Freedom of speech comes with freedom to experience consequence.

Enjoy this community, enrich yourself as you enrich others. If you have any questions about this community or how it is run, you are welcome to contact the moderator.

Asstronaut

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Nope, the French knew what to do at the end of the 1700s.

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fodor@lemmy.zip 6 points 5 hours ago

As we've all noted, you can replace CEOs with AI. All those giant paychecks could go to shareholders, or (gasp!) to workers. No hit to productivity, no decrease in quality.

But the other stuff, the other jobs that were going to disappear, most of them haven't and won't, at least not for years or decades. The tech's just not that good. Computers keep advancing, sure, just like they have for the past half century.

Was ChatGPT impressive? Kinda, maybe, but it doesn't actually make my life better. Or worse. The end.

[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 34 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Nope, he's lying again. This sort of hype disguised as thin-ass critique has been one of his main tactics for years. Not worth giving him even the benefit of the doubt on the headline

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 10 points 8 hours ago

Yep, they're constantly saying it's going to break the economy, because they're desperate for funds and FOMO is the only strategy that works.

They have no path to profitize it, and at this point they likely won't.

The only thing they can do is try to keep the FOMO up.

[–] ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip 8 points 8 hours ago

It would...if it did even 10% of what he claims it does.

Which it does not.

[–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 12 points 9 hours ago (4 children)

Can I make a suggestion that doesn't involve violence... like maybe a UBI? Or is this the wrong crowd for that?

[–] scintilla@crust.piefed.social 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

If you can get UBI implemented in a way that doesn't result in violence be my guest. But refusing to look at violence as an option is how the left has ended up in the state that its in. Weak and ineffective.

[–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 2 points 6 hours ago

Fun fact: Conservatives and Libertarians consider taxation to be violence.

This video is worth watching if you are not familiar with the argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs

They're correct; just pedantic. Yes it's violence, but it's orders of magnitude less violent than many many other alternatives.

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 12 points 9 hours ago

Or is this the wrong crowd for that?

Most countries? No.

America? They have an eat-shit-and-die mentality. Basically, its non-rich-people's fault that the non-rich weren't born rich.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 6 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Sorry, you're not getting UBI without violence.

[–] Town@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 hours ago

Getting violence either way

We’re the right crowd. But VERY against the bullshit that Andrew Yang was trying to push when he ran for President.