You could replace "mosquitoes" in that headline with polio, smallpox, measles, AIDS, malaria, or any one of a thousand different pathogens. No one is agonizing over eradicating them.

Except RFK Jr.

So Who'll .. do the tough jobs

I think that for most use-UBI-to-deal-with-AI advocates, the premise is that robots will do that, and presumably would already be doing it by the time UBI is enacted.

If this is a problem (i.e. robots can't do it yet, or they can't do it as economically as humans), then you're not in a post-work situation yet, so you can't have a post-work utopia yet.

Keep improving those robots! You're not done until unemployment is over 90%, and ideally not until 100% though that may be asymptotic.

What does *he* envision a hypothetical scenario where AI has taken over an extremely large amount of the labor?

Your question wouldn't make any sense to him or any other Trump supporter. Let me rephrase it so that it can be answered by MAGA.

What does he envision, in a scenario where the people Trump currently steals from, no longer have anything to steal? How does a thief find new victims once the old ones are used up?

I think the best MAGA answer to that, is that someone will own the AIs, and reap the "wages" that the AIs earn. Steal from them, because they'll have something to steal. AI will be no different than anything else which changes the distribution of prey: you just gotta keep up with who and where the prey are.

If people boycotted the expensive software options for one year and slammed the IRS with paper forms, this would be reversed post haste.

If we did that, do you know how much it would inconvenience every House member and Senator?

None at all. Their lives will be as damaged as a bulldozer that just ran over Arthur Dent.

Reforming the tax code will cause some people to pay less tax and some other people to pay more.

Whatever your approach, the people who would end up paying more, think your "reform" idea is stupid and evil. I don't remember all their detailed criticisms, but their overall tone was clearly unfavorable.

They hate it. They hate you. Why didn't you make someone else pay more instead?

Why complain about making it easier for them to give it back to you?

Because when Intuit contributes to my political campaign, they tell me they wish it was harder.

There's little point in this, if manufacturers can obey this law and yet still have maintenance remain illegal due to federal law.

Can I take this as a sign that a major party is rethinking their up-to-now support for DMCA?

I'm just going to say the usual thing I say whenever someone claims a $5 wrench undermines encryption:

You can't use a wrench on someone without them knowing you've done it. I can be intimidated, but I can't be intimidated without my knowledge!

So if you're a real mafia type, fine. You win, at least in a single attack. But you can't just monitor people for years with a $5 wrench. And even in a single attack, you've gotta commit to it and murder the target after torturing them for the key. If you fail to murder them, and if you're identifiable, then the victim gets to lawyer up and have laws and courts and stuff.

Wrenches can work, but they're overrated.

Didn't RFK Jr learn anything from Trump's Big Beautiful Healthcare Finance Bill? All RFK Jr had to do is say he has a report, and then wave around a stack of blank papers. If he'd done that, there would be no bullshit to get called on.

LLMs are expert systems, where the expertise is this: what has been written?

That's a pretty cool thing to be expert in, and it really does have some fun (possibly even useful) applications. They seem pretty good at demonstrating this expertise, but I guess a lot of people forget GIGO is a fundamental property of "what has been written?" until you point out that a lot of crap has been written. (Shitposters know the megacodex of human writing contains a lot of crap, because we've knowingly contributed our bespoke turds to it. And I bet LLMs have contributed many of their own turds too, which they're eating and redigesting unless their feeds are very carefully controlled.)

That said, I do have to admit that LLMs have made me move the goalposts on detecting/testing intelligence. LLMs know a lot of stuff (whether it's true or false) and I have a pretty easy time seeing how people could be fooled. I know better than to say I can't be fooled.

Those people all look the same to me.

the president is seeking to supplant the decisions of the CEO of one particular business

It's time you right-wing Demonrats admit that Comrade Trump and his economic planning committee know better about what we need, than running dog capitalists like Tim Apple.

We can't let private industry make decisions about their products. When America unanimously agreed to vote Trump in an overwhelming landslide, we forsook all that Adam Smith nonsense, because Comrade Trump is ready to fight as Marx's champion.

Cower, you free market capitalist losers. WE WILL BURY YOU! [slams shoe on desk]

Seen Youtube lately? I just watched a video on how to make nitroglycerin. Stuff like this has been available for over a decade.

Back in the days that home solar systems still mostly used lead-acid batteries - which in some cases of degradation could be repaired, at least partially, if you had some good strong and reasonably pure sulfuric acid - I viewed a YouTube video on how to make it. (From epsom salts by electrolysis using a flowerpot and some carbon rods from old large dry cells).

For months afterward YouTube "suggested" I'd be interested in videos from a bunch of Islamic religious leaders . (This while people were wondering how Islamic Terrorists were using the Internet to recruit among high-school out-group nerds.)

Software - AI and otherwise - often creates unintended consequences. B-)

Dammit; his colleague turned my woosh back on me!

woosh