This sounds like the lump of labor fallacy

It seems almost certain to me that AI is going to increase the surface area of what it’s possible for programs to do and therefore massively induce demand for more programs

I think the part that remains to be seen is whether a sufficient percent of that new work will be done by humans such that overall demand for the humans doesn’t collapse

Personally I think us humans will be ok for at least a few more years

> It seems almost certain to me that AI is going to increase the surface area of what it’s possible for programs to do and therefore massively induce demand for more programs

Have we seen any of that yet? If anything, the most popular modern projects out there are all AI tooling, basically recursive software to help with using AI. Have you seen any truly novel software that solves new problems? Even before AI, I've been worried that most of the problems that were possible and viable to solve have run dry, leading to tech chasing hype and the next big thing over practical issues that have already been scooped up by someone else. What new problems have been added?

How much coffee were you drinking before quitting? 3-6 months seems like a very long time. As far as I know, most withdrawal symptoms should end within 2 weeks, with the most intense symptoms ending within a few days

3-4 cups a day. Was deeply stressed building products with <$100/mo in rev. Couldn't sleep at night from all the caffeine and cortisol spikes.

The ensuing several months were some of the worst in my life (many confounding variables) missing coffee, feeling anhedonic, and inadequately caffeinated/lucid to tackle my problems.

The problem is that all the infrastructure that cars need (roads, parking lots) makes everything WAY further apart. For example, downtown Houston is literally like 25% parking lots by area. And that's not even counting other car infrastructure like roads. So to some degree, cars are just satisfying a demand for transportation that they themselves create

Denser, less car-centric areas are more economically productive than less dense areas. Car infrastructure prevents density. So I would argue that, at least in some cases, cars decrease economic efficiency

Put simply: The existence of motor vehicles is good, from most perspectives. It's fairly hard to argue they're not.

The development of cities caused by unrestricted, broad private car ownership without lots of careful coordination on that development, is in the reverse situation: it's fairly hard to argue it's net-beneficial, because it's so incredibly expensive in all-told money, time(!), liberty(!!), and, if we'll allow consideration of such things in a basically-economic analysis, pleasantness of environments for humans to exist in.

Troll post? You state that "other people's cars" facilitate thousands of aspects of modern living, then go on to talk about things that trucks do, not personal vehicles

I don't think it's possible to clearly separate personal vehicles from commercial ones. The technology is the same. Any regulation that tries to ban the one while allowing the other would be a huuuge clusterfuck.

You, personally, can't tell the difference between someone's car and a delivery truck?

Maybe it's only this way in my suburban US area, but no.

> The technology is the same

I mean sure, they both have engines and wheels, but they're already distinguishable in the eyes of the law. Commercial and personal vehicles are registered separately

Anyway, I don't think anyone is proposing banning cars. Just would be good to provide alternatives

> Anyway, I don't think anyone is proposing banning cars.

Following the conversation, the subject has not ever been a yes/no referendum on cars.

It was if there has been a moral net positive/net negative for vehicular technology (as a comparable technology to AI)...which has consistently been walked back to a nebulous "personal vehicles are a net negative because of how they make people think". That's eerily close to the views on AI today.

> I don't think it's possible to clearly separate personal vehicles from commercial ones

What? Of course it is, you can easily impose rules that apply to personal vehicles that don't apply to public transport, logistical vehicles or emergency vehicles.

As an example in my neighborhood in the Netherlands, there's basically no streets around me where personal vehicles are allowed, but there are no restrictions to buses, delivery vehicles, moving vans, or ambulances.

> Any regulation that tries to ban the one while allowing the other would be a huuuge clusterfuck

How? You don't even have to go fancy with specialized license plates or anything like that, it's literally just common sense.

> it's literally just common sense.

if that is lacking (often is) $50,000 fine per incident will take care of it

I think you'd need to present some stats that compare how much the ultra-wealthy and normal people donate to altruistic causes (adjusted for income) to make that argument

My understanding is that Wikipedia receives more donations than they need, surely they have the resources to fix it themselves?

You would first need to realzie it's a problem.

The worm is a two year old script from the Russian Wiki that was grabbed randomly for a test by a stupid admin running unsandboxed with full privileges, so no.

Having grown up deep in the Bible belt, I can say that there's often a lot of overlap between the Jesus people and the various -ists

Bigotry has been a big part of the Moral Majority's platform for decades for a reason - it works on that demographic

I have an armchair theory about one possible contributing factor

These are two of the most fundamental beliefs of evangelicals and they don't make much sense when you put them side-by-side:

1. God is the ultimate progenitor and prototype of love

2. God wants to torture a LOT of people forever, some of whom you may know personally and may be all appearances be decent people

This creates a certain amount of cognitive dissonance

Rather than reconsider those beliefs (which may result in your own everlasting torment), it's far easier to resolve that discomfort by dehumanizing non-Christians. Maybe they're actually really rotten people that deserve to be tortured

I agree, but I don't know of a better place to discuss current events on the internet. I can at least expect that the people are educated and intelligent (relative to the average internet user) and there's a cultural of thoughtful discussion.

Every Reddit thread I see on politics these days is just... rabid seething. At this point they remind me of how my elderly far-right relatives posted on Facebook circa 2010. I broadly agree with them (orange man bad) but there's so much misinformation and sloppy thinking that it's useless. There are probably some smaller and more thoughtful political subreddits out there, but if so I haven't found them

EDIT: Now that I think about it some more, I disagree with your sentiment that we should leave the politicking to the politicians. Democracy requires a population that has some idea of what's going on. I think discussion and disagreement is a great way to sharpen one's thinking

The first sentence says that that's a national poll, not a Minnesota poll