Theoretically that's true. Can you tell techbros and the media to shut up about AI until it happens though?

Or maybe its just a fundamental fact of life that something has to die in order for you to live and virtue signaling about the degree to which you participate in that death is a pointless exercise.

The only thing I'm convinced of is the fact that you're talking like a Russian psy-ops agent. You may not be one but at minimum you're doing their work for them.

True but if we suddenly invent an AI that can replace most jobs I think the rich have more to worry about than we do.

In what way is presenting factually incorrect information as if it's true not a bad thing?

reddit is not the entire internet. Your inability to find info without using Google to search reddit posts says more about your habits than it does the state of the internet.

Have you ever seen a WNBA game? Sure, it's the same sport but that logic applies to middle school basketball teams as well and no one gives a shit about those either regardless of the gender of the athletes involved.

The reason professional sports are fun to watch is you get to see the best athletes in the world push the limits of what is physically possible for a human to achieve. Top level women cannot compete with top level men in any regularly televised sport, including basketball. No one wants to watch Caitlin Clark on channel 3 when LeBron James is doing way more impressive things on channel 6. That's just the way it is. I don't get why people pretend that isn't obvious and get offended by it.

I don't think anything of the sort. I found that I didn't enjoy my time on the platform so I don't use it anymore. That simple evaluation had more to do with my decision to stop using it than any moral issues I could cite, of which there are many.

It's pretty easy to be in the office and not working. Especially with all those different places to get lost. I really doubt that works out the way they want it to

Photography is capturing something real in the physical world. Even if the action can be boiled down to "push a button" the photographer needs to have at least some presence where the real event is taking place.

AI art is not a depiction of a real event and requires no physical presence. It's also not being brought to life by the person taking credit for it. That's not to say AI generated images can't be cool or useful but I don't think they are art. If your definition of art is loose enough to apply to AI generated images then the I think the artist credit should belong to the AI itself or the team that wrote the software, not the person typing in prompts.

Well they're violently protecting their illegal mining operations so violence is certainly part of the equation. Violence isn't usually profitable on its own though. It's part of a larger plan to exploit some situation or resource.

They didn't skip those steps. The market just ignored the fact that they've been stepping through those options for the last 30 years because that's what the market as a whole has been doing. As cliche and annoying as it sounds, this is exactly what late stage capitalism looks like. Once growth through sales becomes difficult, usually from approaching monopolistic size in a market, they only have two options left. They can either cut corners and headcount to save on operational expenses or they can decrease revenue growth. Considering the fact that the central thesis of our economy is the idea that infinite growth is not only possible but the only valid pursuit of any corporation it's easy to guess what they're going to do when faced with declining sales or any other detriment to growth.