If you mean swapped for a worker in a low wage country cosplaying as AI for minimum wage for a billion dollar company, then you have a point. Though using Bostrom's positive reinforcement bullshit is the opposite of treating someone fairly.
But I see elsewhere that you didn't mean that.
"Because we got paid, cause we got paid, cause we got pa-aid!"
To the tune of "Then I got high" by Afroman.
The famous story about a man using a drug that sets free the a-hole version of himself?
Oh, that was the drug! It was cocaine all along!
I've used SMTP2go. It was adequate for the needs of the organisation I worked for.
I think Viktor in "Viktor builds a bridge" can serve as a role model. A cliff, a shack and a sea bird as companion.
Just learn from Viktor's mistake. Don't build a bridge.
So one one hand the CEO's want their minions back into office and on the other they want to replace them with AI's?
Sounds like a conundrum. Or a business opportunity!
Presenting Srvile! The brand new Servility as a Service company, with AI powered robots that will laugh at all boss jokes at the water cooler and say things like "That is such a great idea boss! Since I am an AI I can't realise that you are just regurgitating what you read on Xshitter!" and "We certainly need more AI to solve any problem!"
Call now to order!
(AI may at times be enhanced by remote human control for "quality control". Actual level of servility may vary and is not guaranteed.)
The kid herself mostly wants stories “about magic” and with protagonists of about her age.
The horror! What if she grows up reading books she actually likes? She might be developing her mind in ways not approved by her parents!
They are both stupid men who repeat stuff they hear to make them look good. So the question is who are this time the "very smart people" that are telling numbnuts like these two that nuclear war is survivable - and by extension winnable? Because if that is the US defense establishment, then yeah we might be cooked.
I happened to come across an article mentioning the Robinson–Patman Act (from 1936) in relation with wage fixing by algorithm.
From Wikipedia: "a United States federal law that prohibits anticompetitive practices by producers, specifically price discrimination"
It might be relevant here. Obviously I am not a US lawyer specialised in monopoly law.
We could have a whole discussion about geopolitics, but lets not. This is after all a thread about the AI bubble and what comes next.
The 2% target is a economic expenditure target, not a military readiness target. I think it is kind of obvious that the west is supply constrained in arms, so what happens if every state tries to increase expenditures is that arms become more expensive. Profits go up, stock price go up, and presto you have a possible foundation for a new bubble.
On 1, I hope you are right that the AI bubble will burst soon.
I am less certain where the next bubble will be, but pretty certain there will be one. We have seen bubble after bubble during the neoliberal era where hot money inflates valuations in a sector, sells it as success and cash out, leaving the bag with banks, governments, pension funds or households. Then it crashes, causing more or less widespread devastation. But those that started the process are now richer and has more money to push into the next bubble, preferably something that is already growing.
So, apart from AI, what is growing now? Weapons manufacturers seem to be doing very well, and weapons and AI are also connected. So my prediction is that the next bubble will be weapons related, probably focused around AI powered drones. As the US is pressuring NATO governments to increase weapons spending, money will pour in directly from governments to the corporations. As long as the threat of on outbreak of peace can be averted, money will keep rolling in.
Here it sounds like he is criticising the parliamentary system were the legislative elects the executive instead of direct election of the executive. Of course both in parliamentary and presidential (and combined) systems a number of voting systems are used. The US famously does not use FPTP for presidential elections, but instead uses an electoral college.
So to be very charitable, he means a parliamentary system where it's hard to depose the executive. I don't think any parliamentary system uses 60 % (presumably of votes or seats in parliament) to depose a cabinet leader, mostly because once you have 50% aligned the cabinet leader you presumably have an opposition leader with a potential majority. So 60% is stupid.
If you want a combined system where parliament appoints but can't depose, Suriname is the place to be. Though of course they appoint their president for a term, not indefinitely. Because that's stupid.
To sum up: stupid ideas, expressed unclearly. Maybe he should have gone to high school.