Like the op, I am against taking humans out completely. Perhaps they don't realize what it actually means to fully replace humans. And on top of that, current "ai" is far from being capable of it, this is why I question their motives.

@carlbergstrom.com made this point as well.
bsky.app/profile/carl...

We should always question their motives. Automation is great for some things, but total human replacement is the start of a recipe for human species annhilitation. 2/2

4. What we do have is a choice between a world in which concentrated capital takes yet one further step along the path of the industrial revolution, appropriating and mechanizing the knowledge that currently resides within labor, as with the Jacquard loom.

3. I appealed to the joy of doing science—and got the predictable question:

Would you rather live in a world where AI cured cancer or live in a world where you personally get to do science?

But that's not the dilemma we face at all. There's no cause to think that AI could do anything of the sort.

how much, do you think, of Finland's success is tied to it being a fairly homogeneous country? Also, do you know of a good resource that gives more details about Finland's efforts in schools? Thanks in advance.

By the end of the ratification debates, everyone understood that the 14th Amendment would grant birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants. The only live question was whether that was a *good* thing. Some senators argued it wasn’t. But they lost! applyliberally.substack.com/p/birthright...

the idea that a handful of conservative legal scholars have an understanding that should supersede a settlement affirmed my generations of american is astoundingly arrogant, and the idea that trump — or any president — can unilaterally overturn that settlement is just despotism