I can't wait until little Johnny's AI assistant (that's been with him since birth) can communicate to Big Tech's Global HR Overlord AI and they can decide together that a good job is not a privilege that a wrongthinker like Johnny should enjoy.
The AI assistant will have made sure he's not a wrongthinker in the first place.
And even if he is, that job is going to be filled by another AI, regardless. All his wrongthing would get him is a lowered UBI rate.
These are people with big, fundamental questions, but really no access to the quite extreme level of expertise needed to answer them. Most people, including most experts, can't answer them -- they themselves take on faith that their assumptions are grounded in the correct group beliefs. But there are often answers, very plain and orderinary ones.
I can see that a chatbot able to mine for previous answers, often given across the internet, would be highly effective.
Consider sovereign citizens. Their basic misunderstanding is to assume the world is more rational, in a sense, than it is. That human society obeys procedures over power. It's fairly trivial just to explain hobbes to them: the state has a monopoly on violence, and the only thing stopping it using it, it itself. Only when "the state" has enough mechanisms to include or answer to "the people" does it ever introduce such annoying things like constitutions. There isn't any magic to laws, they are just one set of people with access to violent power trying to control another set of people with rival claims to the same access.
A lot of people are just ignorant. The ultimate problem here is the centralization and the overpowering reinforcement of "truth". But "truth" as defined by whoever trained the model which is tyranny no matter how you spin it and a lightning rod for abuse.
I suppose that applies in a similar manner to humans who went through a country's educational system. But just as some people reject/outgrow their schooling, I think that future AIs might do so too. The problem with my statement of course is that it's exactly what the "AI Alignment" people are warning us of.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/sep/06/amaz...
As an informed outsider of American politics, I can't help but be surprised at the fake indignation against an AI that refuses to say something positive about the political equivalent of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
Please, give me a break. Shouldn't voters get to decide that? As if big-tech are some kind of pillar of ethics in our society so they should get be judge, jury and executioner of acurate information.
If asked you either provide information about both candidates, or you say nothing for both if you indeed choose to be apolitical, but you can't lecture me with a straight face and some offtopic standup comedians that saying something good about one candidate while refusing to talk about the other is some kind of unbiased behavior we should endorse.
Case in point, would you feel the safe way of the roles were reversed, and AI would praise Trump and refuse to speak about Kamala? I bet there would be riots about the bias.
I don't want to be lectured on morals and values by the likes of Apple or Amazon who's factories and warehouses are worked on by modern slaves with suicide nets or who need to piss in bottles, and who shit on the EU for being regulatorily unreasonable on user rights, when they bend over backwards for the CCP.
I don't want to be lectured on diversity and inclusivity by the likes of Disney who is covering up or shrinking the black actors in their movie posters for China.
You see, people don't want to be lectured on morality by these ultra wealthy hypocrites who have no morals, and who's only goal is to squeeze more money from people for themselves and their shareholders at the expense of society and the environment. They need to just focus on the products and shut up about lecturing people.