It's funny though, llms are quite terrible at most things really.
They can build things, but it's all terrible really. Their "ideas" are terrible.
10 karma · joined February 2, 2025
They can build things, but it's all terrible really. Their "ideas" are terrible.
No. What I said is just a fact. There's no assumption, the requirement is a fact. You need money to pay for goods and services for the people no longer working.
There's no assumption there? What's the assumption, that goods and services need to be paid for?
So stop bringing up migrants for no reason at all. The actual issue is money, and there are many ways to obtain money.
The nonsense about troops is of course ridiculous. Just a fantastical statement divorced from reality. Who is this enemy Europe is facing that will require a ww1 style meat grinder of 10s of millions of troops, which of course took place when the european population was half the size.
I told you what the requirement was. Money. You have simply arbitrarily decided instead it's just people for no reason at all. As though magically people will spawn resources from their finger tips. According to you the richest countries in the world must be the most populous.
Obviously this is idiotic to even a cursory examination.
The next assumption you've made is that birth rate is completely random, a roll of the dice, an unchangeable fact of the universe. The reality is of course it's a result of policy and economics. This can be solved extremely easily.
No, you don't need to accept migrants. You need money. You can get money in many many ways.
The best way for this to happen for the general prosperity of citizens is for the state to enrich themselves from the work of others, non citizens, and give that money to citizens. This is what Norway has done through its sovereign wealth fund.
Turns out if it's more economically efficient to simply import skilled workers, or outsource, then that's what will happen. Breeding and educating your own citizens in a first world country is very expensive. So you don't do it.
The only reason not to do this is national preference. Economically it makes sense, on a national level it makes sense, individually it's genocide.
An explicit query returns a specific answer, but means nothing about whether it can use that knowledge to create better software.
You do have a choice, you can change things. Getting angry, especially in large numbers, is a prerequisite to change. Because getting angry is the prerequisite for violence.
His statement is "ignore getting fucked in the ass and take it". How exactly is that interesting?
If you want to measure something else then measure something else.
Yes, they obviously are? Just an absurd thing to state.
Extracting maximum profit is correct.
There is only reality. Reality is it's a form of intelligence, one that will relentlessly improve. The base form of problem solving is identical to humans, statistical inference, the only thing left is raw intelligence/capability.
You don't get to have a world where it's smarter and doesn't kill us all, that's not reality. Outcompeted is extinction.
There's no "view" to be had.
On the way to killing us all there sure will be a lot of cool tech. That's not a view, that's a fact too. And then we will all die.
The problem is you don't understand how terrible life on earth is currently for the majority of people, you are coddled.
Wealth does not exist in a vacuum. It is not some inherent trait of individuals that manifests independently of the structures around them. The wealthiest people succeed not just because of their individual effort but because they operate within a framework that provides enforceable contracts, property rights, regulated markets, financial systems, infrastructure, security, and a workforce educated by public institutions. Strip all that away, and they are no better off than anyone else in a lawless wasteland where power is dictated purely by brute force.
If wealth were purely a function of individual effort, we’d see people amassing fortunes in failed states or ungoverned regions where there is no government interference—but we don’t. In fact, in those places, the absence of government results in instability, extreme poverty, and the inability to conduct large-scale business. Conversely, the wealthiest individuals overwhelmingly exist in places with strong institutions and legal protections—because those things are prerequisites for wealth accumulation.
Your contradiction is actually the real contradiction. You claim that people become rich despite the government but then ignore the fact that wealth is unequally distributed precisely because the government does not intervene enough to prevent market capture by a small elite. A government that enables wealth creation is not the same as one that ensures it is fairly distributed. It is perfectly consistent to acknowledge that wealth requires government structures while also recognizing that unchecked capitalism leads to oligarchy.
So no, this isn't simplistic nonsense. The simplistic nonsense is pretending that wealth creation happens in a vacuum when, in reality, it is entirely contingent on the existence of an organized society with functional institutions.