Weeding is the act of removing unwanted plants, known as weeds, from a garden or other area where they are not desired. Capitalism "weeds" out the people that are marked for inefficiency.
I see this mimicking of capitalism as a depressing attempt to be in control. A re-expression of the power dynamic.
"Tending", which is the act of removing undesirable parts of whatever, isn't a parallel to how capitalism favors a winner-takes-it-all scenarios, if that's what you're alluding to.
If you're growing edible stuff, you need to remove the weed in many parts of the world otherwise you won't have any vegetables eventually as the weeds will overgrow everything else. You also don't want something you cannot eat to take nutrients and sun from what you can eat.
Gardening and horticulture are ancient human activities that are incredibly old, the act of tending to and cultivating one's garden is a really delightful way to center the mind and get into a place where one is more grounded, connected to nature, and about as disconnected from capitalist interests a thing as you'll find. It's humanizing.
Just because the suits took a metaphor from gardening doesn't mean you have to think like the suits, maybe you want to liberate yourself from the kind of dehumanizing thinking where capitalism rather than nature is the central frame of reference.
You also cull weak animals for the good of the flock/herd, to avoid dysgenic traits from them being passed down. You also clean your house. You also peel and trim a potato before cooking it.
It doesn't have to be like this. Why do you accept it? Serious question. You don't need a surveillance state. How many indignities do you stomach for what exactly? Some false sense of freedom? Freedom to buy illegal unlicensed untaxed weed? Freedom to get run over by a delivery ebike?
> How many indignities do you stomach for what exactly?
People selling handbags neither threatens my dignity nor makes me indignant.
When I think of "terrorize", I think of things like.. y'know, people strapped with explosives, blowing up buses full of civilians. Or something like the Rape of Nanking, where Japanese army killed and raped their way across the city. The Japanese terrorized the city, literally instilling a nightmarish-level of fear.
I can't place "they're terrorizing me by selling handbags" anywhere in the same universe. If you're genuinely frightened by this, I would like to gently suggest you talk this through with a therapist.
I don't. I work every day to help my community and I hope you do the same.
> You don't need a surveillance state
Then don't call for one. If you'd like to change your community, again, I'd recommend you to stop being scared and just start talking to more people around you.
You seem to think everyone should conform to one homogenous way of life. This was tried in Europe a little under a century ago and it did not turn out well.
That vague posting is a bit frustrating to be honest.
Are you talking about the fact they do not accept pull requests? If yes, they had good reasons for doing so, LLMs make it really time consuming and exhausting to manage an open source community, I completely understand why they decided to stop accepting PRs for now
Along with a myriad of different controversies. Just searching his name will bring up many articles about his chronically online Elon Musk wannabe takes.
Technological changes to economic conditions in general are not possible to opt out of forever. I'm not an AI accelerationist myself, because I think there are severe risks beyond the merely economic, but the auto industry is a good example of where many countries are engaging in what one might call "EV accelerationism". In principle you don't have to, it's possible to let them roll out only to the extent that the market naturally demands, but if you know internal combustion engines will become a niche hobbyist thing by 2050 there's a lot of value in making that transition faster and intentional.
If humans are machines executing on some medium eventually it will be possible to emulate them on some other medium. Believing otherwise requires some essentially religious convictions on the existence of the soul or similar.
We already have human intelligence. Creating new humans is easy (and fun)
The only reason to emulate human intelligence is to capture it, exploit it, and reduce the negotiating power of those who have it naturally. Anyone who wants this is not a friend of human beings
Creating a new educated, competent human takes ~25 years, and significant costs and resources.
AGI can be just copy-pasted at essentially no cost. Even a robot that is mass-produced for tens of thousands of dollars is still much less expensive and takes much less time to make than a competent human.
Yes, but I think we should separate human economic value from the true purpose of our existence. If AI can replace us in economically valuable tasks, we will have no choice but to do so. The economic value part should be looked at objectively.
Except there's already billions of humans with millions becoming competent humans every year. Also the machine analogy breaks down in some ways for biological organisms. It's messier, more complex and organisms weren't designed for a purpose. There is no software humans are running. That's just a metaphor for whatever the brain & nervous system (throughout the body) does.
That does not follow. The argument about the possibility of artificial intelligence makes absolutely no claims about the purpose of human or artificial intelligence. One is a claim about "is", another is a claim about "ought".
That all persons doing intellectual work die of hunger as they cannot find a job. At least that's how I understand what the parent commenter is implying. They say that all people doing intellectual work better die quickly so they don't suffer a long 'transition period' to inevitably being dead of hunger.
