You can choose a lot of different things. The question remains, is this a viable way to structure an economic system in a world in which all of the necessities of life are produced with no (or almost no) labor?

Are you seriously proposing a world in which eight billion people are employed in producing master-crafted articles (and these master-crafted articles are "long term" purchases, hence with a small output needed.)?

Where do the peons get the money to buy mass-produced items?

A handful are master craftsmen. What about the other seven billion?

To be fair, this is nothing new. The entirety of the industrial revolution has been finding ways to use automation to decrease the amount of human labor used to make things (i.e., increase "productivity".)

The problem is that we do not have an economic system in which a society works when there is no need for human labor, and a small but rich fraction of the population owns the machinery that produces everything.

Or, there's the same amount of stuff worth reading, but it is being diluted by a much larger flow of sewage that isn't worth reading.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fui.adsabs.harvard.edu%2F...

What in the world do you think happens to the output of sewage treatment plants? Do you think it's teleported to Pluto?

All the water you ever bathed in has effluents that have gone through the kidneys of scores of animals. Merely warming water by a few degrees is trivial.

Air cooling is quite inefficient compared to water cooling. The heat of vaporization of water, 2260 kJ/kg, is remarkable. It will remove a lot of heat. Even the thermal mass of water, with a specific heat of about 4.2 kJ K/kg, is pretty impressive.

Not sure why you think this is AI slop. It's an interesting argument. Not sure I agree, but it's a different take.

The connection is right in the subject line: it is comparing AI to a "sacred prestige competition." The central idea is that AI is like religion in that it promises great and wonderful rewards in the future if we make sacrifices in the present, and if we don't see any of these great and wonderful rewards: that's because we're not sacrificing enough. It becomes a death spiral: the worse things get, the more effort goes into propitiating the gods (rather than growing food).

The idea that some past societies have collapsedbecause when times were bad the theocracy responded by building more temples and making more and larger sacrifices instead of putting resources into solving their problems) is not new. I don't know if any actual historians credit this theory, but it's been proposed.

It's called "pathetic fallacy"-- ascribing feelings (pathos, in Greek) to inanimate objects.

I'm afraid that we do this all the time. I don't even think twice before saying something like "the toaster doesn't like you to run the blender while it's toasting" or "this program wants two special characters in the password, not just one."

This is a point people keep missing. AI is not just ChatGPT and its clones. Those are just large language models. What really matters is the use of AI in doing actual work, and that has little to do with language models.

You're ignoring everything I say. Bye/

You're not paying attention. What I said was that it is not beneficial to compel people who don't want to vote to do so anyway. Somehow you mutated that into "let's take away self-government!"

This is characteristic of your arguments: you take what I said, immediately jump to something different, and then shoot at that straw man.

I don't see that this discussion is going anywhere, since you seem to be primarily interested in not listening to anything. My thread was about the mathematics of voting, and you have hijacked it to be a platform for your ideas that it's important to make people vote whether they want to or not, that legislatures should be enormously huge, and that anybody who tries to analyze these ideas in any way is necessarily "authoritarian".

OK, those are your opinions. You're expressed them. I'm done. Bye.

That's correct.

It is you who jumped from there to "you're an authoritarian!", not me.

The assumption that all people are perfectly rational is contradicted by vast amounts of actual experience. It would be nice to live in an ideal perfect world, but we don't.

And your logic fails. The objective is to find a system that works as well as possible in a world including imperfect people. Your core logical jump "if people are imperfect then autocracy must be the only possible solution!" (because autocrats can't be imperfect?) makes no sense.

When I said that it is disadvantageous to try to make people who have no interest in voting to vote anyway, you immediately jump to "you are an authoritarian !"

No.

That's not what I said.

What I have been saying is that there are mathematically better ways of voting, but "force everybody to vote!" isn't one of them.

Why would you think that? Most voters are ill-informed. You want to forcing the ones who currently don't bother to even spend one hour going to the polls to vote? So, you want more votes from people who are guaranteed to not spend time learning about issues.

That won't change.

Because congress has too many people.

Not too few.

Interesting, but tends to make a different problem worse. There is no actual individual incentive for voters to devote time and energy to becoming knowledgeable about candidates and issues. This would tend to increase the number of apathetic voters, rather than knowledgable voters.

You want six thousand representatives?!?

I would have said that the problem with the House of Representatives is exactly the opposite: it has too many members, not too few. As for the original constitution, the first congress with all 13 states had 65 representatives. That's already a large number for an organization to debate rationally, but way better than what we now have, 435. That's unmanageable.

We need to drop the number of representatives, not increase it. (Likewise senate).

A congress of 6,800 members would mean each member would have pretty close to zero weight. And you wouldn't be able to pay them, so this would be a volunteer congress of part-timers who can afford to be not paid. They would never meet together, but that's ok, since there's no way 6,800 people could have a reasonable discussion.

I'd think this a worst case solution.