I think you are definitely right. People need to learn to be more resilient. People are in such a hurry to give over their lives to Sam Altman (cue the "decentralizers and democratizers").
This idea that it is so much more better for OpenAI to have all this information about because it can make some suggestions seem ludicrous. How has humanity survived thus far without this. This seems like you just need more connections with real people.
I think the problem you are having is that you are actually thinking clearly and rationally and are not suffering from this incessant brain rot that is the new normal.
How is that a good ideal? As far as I know Stallman, not that he is objectively correct, does not claim all software should be in the public domain, he just has what amounts to a strong personal preference and advocacy. The idea that someone would not be able to protect a work that they toiled creating is pretty repugnant and while i will probably be massively downvoted, this i the view held by most reasonable people.
I hear you but I feel like you (and really others like you, in mass) should not be so passive about your replacement. For most programmers, simply flipping burgers for money to enjoy programming a few hours a week is not going to work. Making a living is a thing. If you are reduced to having to flip burgers that means the economy will gave collapsed and there won’t be any magic Elon UBI money to save us.
Does the rest of the world want to make money in a way not involving digging ditches? I feel like people from developing countries that spend 18 hours a day studying, giving their entire childhood to some standardized test, may not want yo be rewarded with no job prospects. Maybe that’s a crazy position.
I don't know. It seems like from what you saying that you and honestly an enormous amount of people need to actually learn about 20th century European history and WWII. People are throwing around these terms of NAZI and Gestapo and all of this and I think they have no idea what they mean. The left is not against authoritarian. The left does not even want to really eliminate the police. They just want to be the ones to decide who are the thought-criminals and what to do with them. Also, that is not what Gish galloping. I don't know what is happening here.
I do know my history. The Nazi party was a pan-German nationalist party. I'm not sure why this is controversial.
Germans, and Germany are obviously quite sensitive to the dangers of nationalism and authoritarianism. Not just because of WW2, but also the experience of East Germany.
Authoritarian? You're saying this because of immigration; this comes from a position that is basically open borders. It is an interesting double standard. The people that hold this position would not consider non-Western countries that don't want to have open borders or have dramatic demographic shifts in their population and culture to be "authoritarian." This whole notion of "rounding up the bad people" is just infantile leftist stuff. How do you have a sovereign country if you are not able to have a policy that prevents unfettered 'immigration' or unable to deport those that immigrated contrary to law?
The whole concept of a country as a related group of people from one ethnicity or historical origin is relatively recent.
Feudalism did not have this concept; a country was the land belonging to a king (or equivalent), mediated through a set of nobles. There was no concept of illegal or legal immigration; the population of a country were the people who worked for, or were owned by, the nobles ruling that country. There were land rights granted to peasants who had historically lived in that place, but these could and were often overruled by nobles.
European nobility had no such idea of ethnicity or national grouping; the English monarchy is a German family, and most of European nobility were related to each other much more closely than to the citizens of their country.
Early post-monarchy states didn't have this concept. The English Civil War and the French Revolution didn't create states that had a defined concept of the citizen as a member of any ethnic grouping. Again, there's no mention of immigration in any of the documents from this period. It just wasn't a concept they thought about.
The whole concept that a nation-state is a formalisation of a historical grouping of ethnically related people is a very recent one, only a couple of hundred years old.
So to answer your question: It is very easy to have a sovereign country without a policy that prevents unfettered immigration; you just don't care about your population being ethnically diverse. Your citizens are the people who live in your country, and have undergone whatever ceremony and formality you decide makes them citizens.
This is, after all, how America historically did this; if you arrived in America and pledged allegiance, you became a citizen of America.
reply