CEO of Palantir Says AI Means You’ll Have to Work With Your Hands Like a Peasant
-
And yet youtube is still the dominant video host.
Youtube hasn't descended to being unusable yet.
You’re missing the point entirely. If instead of luxuries you look through the lens of necessities perhaps you’ll see. Like replace cookies with bread and try tell me people will choose to starve first. Like obviously not.
I think you're missing the point. If we substitute bread in the example I gave and they're putting sawdust in it, then yes people will not buy bread made with zero flour, but instead made with sawdust. Yes, people will stop buying bread in that situation because they would die anyway because the bread doesn't produce nutritional value.
Ask a ford employee 30 years ago about robot automation. Like this is not a new thing in the 2020s. The rich have a playbook for this.
Now you're speaking against your original point. Robot automation has not lowered the quality of a Ford vehicle. If anything it has increased it. A robot can have assembly tolerances much tighter than a human. Where is the lowering of quality from a robot making the vehicle that your original thesis demands?
Robot automation has not lowered the quality of a Ford vehicle
I never said that and the quality of a ford truck is irrelevant to the assembly worker who lost their job due to automation.
You need to back up because you have gone down a tangent alone.
The notion that people won't eat sawdust bread is demonstrably false with many historical examples proving you wrong. Your stipulation about zero flour is a moving goalpost and a strawman fyi
-
Early colonized America used slave labor by racist christians. Those racist christians said they were supposed to be rich because god made them that way. That predates the robber barons of the early 1900s.
Great, congrats. You are today's biggest pedant. Here's your prize.
-
Robot automation has not lowered the quality of a Ford vehicle
I never said that and the quality of a ford truck is irrelevant to the assembly worker who lost their job due to automation.
You need to back up because you have gone down a tangent alone.
The notion that people won't eat sawdust bread is demonstrably false with many historical examples proving you wrong. Your stipulation about zero flour is a moving goalpost and a strawman fyi
Robot automation has not lowered the quality of a Ford vehicle
I never said that and the quality of a ford truck is irrelevant to the assembly worker who lost their job due to automation.
You need to back up because you have gone down a tangent alone.
I agree we're down a tangent, but I'm following the logic of your responses. This is a response to your original thesis: "AI robots can be utter shit". Then you introduced the ford example for automation, which isn't shit for assembly.
Which point to you want to back up to that would change our conversation path?
The notion that people won’t eat sawdust bread is demonstrably false with many historical examples proving you wrong.
I'm glad you saw those. I specifically chose sawdust in my example because of those events in history. Those support what I'm talking about. When the adulteration of the food became bad enough, people stopped eating it.
Your stipulation about zero flour is a moving goalpost and a strawman fyi
My "zero flour" comment is a response to your original thesis where you said: "quality of service can drop indefinitely."
It can't be indefinitely. There's a point where people will stop consuming it when it gets bad enough.
-
Great, congrats. You are today's biggest pedant. Here's your prize.
I'm not looking for pedantry. I'm looking for clarity. You eluded to a specific action by robber barons in the 1900s. I'm looking for what that is because I'm seeing that idea predate them.
-
Robot automation has not lowered the quality of a Ford vehicle
I never said that and the quality of a ford truck is irrelevant to the assembly worker who lost their job due to automation.
You need to back up because you have gone down a tangent alone.
I agree we're down a tangent, but I'm following the logic of your responses. This is a response to your original thesis: "AI robots can be utter shit". Then you introduced the ford example for automation, which isn't shit for assembly.
Which point to you want to back up to that would change our conversation path?
The notion that people won’t eat sawdust bread is demonstrably false with many historical examples proving you wrong.
I'm glad you saw those. I specifically chose sawdust in my example because of those events in history. Those support what I'm talking about. When the adulteration of the food became bad enough, people stopped eating it.
Your stipulation about zero flour is a moving goalpost and a strawman fyi
My "zero flour" comment is a response to your original thesis where you said: "quality of service can drop indefinitely."
It can't be indefinitely. There's a point where people will stop consuming it when it gets bad enough.
you said: "quality of service can drop indefinitely."
What I actually said was...
As long as the rich maintain their monopolies quality of service can drop indefinitely. Doesn't matter if AI robots suck ass when no human employed company can compete and every other option is just as ass.
So yes you have completely missed my point and are arguing with yourself, not me.
It can't be indefinitely. There's a point where people will stop consuming it when it gets bad enough.
Yes but I'm not talking about that. You need to go back and reread what I actually said and stop putting words in my mouth and trying to have a discussion with me that doesn't exist.
-
you said: "quality of service can drop indefinitely."
What I actually said was...
As long as the rich maintain their monopolies quality of service can drop indefinitely. Doesn't matter if AI robots suck ass when no human employed company can compete and every other option is just as ass.
So yes you have completely missed my point and are arguing with yourself, not me.
It can't be indefinitely. There's a point where people will stop consuming it when it gets bad enough.
Yes but I'm not talking about that. You need to go back and reread what I actually said and stop putting words in my mouth and trying to have a discussion with me that doesn't exist.
I have never intentionally put words in your mouth. The best I can figure after rereading our entire thread is that you're jumping around on different points but giving no clues in the conversation you're doing that. As in, I'm responding to one of your points, but you're providing a rebuttal for a completely different point of your own.
In this conversation I've been trying to restate what I'm seeing as your interpretation in an attempt to confirm we're communicating, but then I get another response indicating we're not communicating.
There's two possibilities I see as to whats happening here:
- your thesis and points are not logically consistent
OR
- we are simply not able to communicate effectively with one another today
For the purposes of civility, I'm not going to make a judgment one which one these it is. I'll let you give your downvote button a rest and simply bow out talking more with you today. Maybe in the future we'll have better luck with one another.
-
I'm not looking for pedantry. I'm looking for clarity. You eluded to a specific action by robber barons in the 1900s. I'm looking for what that is because I'm seeing that idea predate them.
It does predate them. They didn't invent it, and I never said they did. I said their actions are the reason the US reveres wealth today, as in it's the most contemporary set of events that have reinvigorated that well-practiced strategy.
If you're looking for specific historical knowledge, as in citations, here you go:
-
It does predate them. They didn't invent it, and I never said they did. I said their actions are the reason the US reveres wealth today, as in it's the most contemporary set of events that have reinvigorated that well-practiced strategy.
If you're looking for specific historical knowledge, as in citations, here you go:
If you’re looking for specific historical knowledge, as in citations, here you go:
These are exactly the type of thing I was looking for. Thank you for sharing them.
-
Early colonized America used slave labor by racist christians. Those racist christians said they were supposed to be rich because god made them that way. That predates the robber barons of the early 1900s.
after decimating the indigenous americans that have been here more than 10k years.
-
after decimating the indigenous americans that have been here more than 10k years.
after decimating the indigenous americans that have been here more than 10k years.
No argument on the truthfulness of your statement, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the premise of society enforcing the thought that the rich are rich because of god.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login