The only way it can be made to not cost money is if we use slave labor. If people are getting paid to deliver it, it costs money.
I was arguing that there are pros and cons, costs and benefits. I don't understand your question "why would it matter" or why it is incredibly stupid. Isn't it incredibly stupid to pretend it doesn't have a cost, that there is only upside?
Lead in water has no upside. Whereas Universal healthcare and LLMs have both pros and cons. If it's feels like a "no brainer", and if you think everyone agrees, that says more about you than the issue.
Sorry if I moved the goal post from sycophantic. If that's the sticking point, I would still ask "according to whom"? It's not a black/white issue. This is one of the most complex and cutting edge tools we have, which the designers themselves admit to not really understanding. It took them 10+ years just to make it intelligent enough for general use. It's not like one day, out of nowhere, some supervillain decided to push the "unleash the sycophantic AI to cause psychosis" button.
And pushing the "Don't be delusional" button also might not be an option. It's trained on human output. Even if it had the capacity, It's easy to imagine "the truth" causing 100x the psychosis.
I don't disagree with the last thing you said, that it's normal for the elite to obfuscate, spin, piss on our legs and tell us it's raining. But, if our response is "So I should always trust my gut, avoid understanding the pros and cons, and trust the 'everybody' In my echo chamber who agrees with me", i can only see that adding to the problem. An angry mob vs sophisticated propaganda, even if it wins the occasional battle, loses the war.
Cool thanks for contributing to the convo.
How do you decide something is bad? Some people die from drinking too much water... anytime someone has a psychotic break, we should blame whatever media they consumed, or their ex girlfriend?
He said he is making lots of money for someone else. He is making the money, therefore it is his money, not the money if the other person. It's like the "taxation is theft" people are unable to apply the same logic on the owners of the boots they lick.
I don't understand. You don't believe in hiring, paying wages? Like if you hire me to help you build a website, i should keep the profits of what you sell? Or, more directly, if you later sell the website, that money is mine?
I was questioning all his complaints, including having to shit and piss, and said that indicates bigger problems and needs therapy. You hear mocking and "you should be grateful"? Disingenuous in the extreme, nobody is this subtext delusional!
The message is all over the media that I should be grateful, im sorry I literally can't think of a time I came across that. I hear people suggesting gratitude practice as a way of feeling joy, or maybe would expect "you should feel grateful" at church or some religious context, but, I dunno, maybe im very selective about the media i consume?
Same. Only been here a few days. yeah, my comments will get downloaded to hell, but so far the responses are somewhat civil. It's a step up from what im used to! I also like how very downvoted comments arent automatically buried.
A common misunderstanding. Boats (made of rock) float due to gravity pushing the water up (as it bounces off the earth). Boats made of feathers (ducks) harness the same principle, as they are also filled with water.
Thanks for response. At the beginning of your response you're again saying it can be made to cost no money if it is public, but later you're acknowledging that of course it costs money, as does private. So I'll respond to your second point, where we're both saying "of course it costs money".
When I first said "it costs money", I was meaning to imply "...that people don't want to spend". If I don't want a service, because id rather use that money for something else, but I am forced pay for it, then to me, that would be a negative.
Im guessing you don't like when gov spends money it takes from you on bombs, right? Even though the supporters would argue it's in your best interest, it's for the greater good, that it is preventing the loss of life at home. You might say "fuck that, I don't care, I dont want it, it's wrong for me to pay for it". That's the downside to you, and it would be perfectly reasonable of you to have that position.
If I would rather spend my money on private healthcare, or no healthcare, but it is taken from me for the "greater good", then that's a negative to me, which is just as reasonable.
[if you're tempted to argue about bombs being life destroying, etc, spare me. It's just an example. Pick any expense you want: somebody doesn't want it, it has a cost, and that's a downside to that person if you make it public aka force them to pay for it.]
everything has a cost and a benefit, and if you and "everybody" can only see one or the other, consider: that's the same view someone inside an echo chamber would have. If you're unaware of the other side (or can't even conceive of it!) you are at best half-informed (and zero-persuasive).