Yes, Gov's require populations to have "real" offspring. Authoritarian or not, this makes sense. IMO its only a matter of time before some version of this hits the US; if it has not already.
“Robotic productivity” is taxed in every country, including China — the profits go to some entity, to some company. With exceptions for the companies that manage to wrestle themselves in paying virtually nothing in taxes, that profit is taxed somewhere down the line. Nothing special about AI productivity, it’s just money.
“Robotic productivity” is taxed in every country, including China
Only by taxing the humans and human-based corporations that ultimately pay for it. On a longer timeline, the robots are going to become full-fledged economic actors in their own right.
I kinda feel like if people have to turn to AI for companionship, it's the same as using AI for therapy - because the real thing isn't available and any number of systems have failed those people along the way.
In a sense, that might be a bit telling of the modern day society: in what world is it so difficult to make meaningful connections to people, that if a real human relationship can be like 5x more meaningful (made up numbers, but surely people will agree that a real relationship can have more depth) than whatever the AI can provide, and people still choose that over the real thing? Or maybe the average person kind of sucks, or the way relationships are treated sucks, or maybe the AI is like crack for impressionable brains, or people don't want a real relationship and just want some sycophantic whatever, I don't know.
Maybe it's a numbers game and some people will never find that for real (gender skew, demographics etc.), maybe it's a failing at those people not being properly socialized, maybe they themselves have something that society doesn't value ("Be yourself! No, not like that."), or just aren't pleasant for any number of reasons, don't have a third place to go for, don't have money to go and partake in social activities, have been brainwashed by hateful social media propaganda or any other mix of circumstances.
Feels like it's probably easier to ban AI and pretend all of the other issues don't exist, rather than addressing them.
Also all the hot people can find each other now because of the dating apps and when people are below a certain level of ugliness they don’t want to date each other anymore.
This seems like an excuse/conspiracy theory. Hot people could always find hot people: go to where hot people hang out (clubs, hipster bars, art galleries, yoga, etc). What has definitely increased is access to people complaining about hot people not dating them.
There’s some truth to it. You can now easily meet people in a 100 mile radius, that wasn’t the case until about 20 years ago. Personality matters when people get to see it, not when you make snap decisions based on an image in half a second when you swipe.
I’ve been married for 15 years. When I found my wife even dating apps were much more slow paced, I just feel for the current generation.
If people are born into a situation or simply have had bad luck with who they decided to trust, after enough betrayal you decide that juice of relationships isn't worth the squeeze. I'm pretty much there in my life, I don't seek companionship in AI but more than casual friendships and especially romance is not worth the work and the pain.
Ah no. There's pain, and then there's pain that I would never wish on my worst enemy.
The pain I suffer gets worse with every setback and affects my work life for extended periods of time. Past a certain point you need to weigh the risks and tradeoffs, and in my calculus, for my own survival, it swung in favor of no relationships.
Everyone has a different strategy and I prescribe nothing, that is my own way
Perhaps with such dangerous conditions being bred, we could target those who intentionally bred this world through promoting anti-social, culture war content. Going as far as to utilize psychologists to design and execute their attack on the nation.
Any sane society would have these people displayed prominently on piles. Instead you’ll continue to give them more money while the problems boil to the point of violence and societal desolation. In that sense you get what you fucking deserve.
Off topic, but I have always wondered if the real advantage of an AI therapist is it has little power over you and will not snitch you to the authorities if you say something "wrong." People walk on eggshells when talking to human therapists because they know if they say something about hurting themselves or others, they can end up in a mental institution, losing their jobs, the custody of their children, their home, everything. AI companies seem to just not care enough to monitor the chats for these kind of things. For better or worse.
> will not snitch you to the authorities if you say something "wrong."
What makes you believe this? We had this story[1] just a few days ago where Waymo up and decided to pull over and hand passengers who had guns on them over to the police. If anything, I would trust AI less to keep a conversation private and not flag me for one of its many programmed "safety" triggers.
If you took someone from the 1990s and dumped them in 2026, I think one of the biggest shocks to them would be how optional humans are everywhere. You can't get a human on the phone when you call a business anymore. We check out our own groceries with machines now. We order fast food from a kiosk or app instead of a person. Self-driving taxis. Robots doing work and AI making content. Apps mediating all kinds of relationships (personal, romantic, business, employee-employer) rather than the humans themselves. We've kind of just allowed technology to start making us all irrelevant. What is the return on this investment?
~$5T/year in profits from the US, concentrated to the ~10% of American households who hold ~93% of equities, while the socioeconomic and social systems continue towards failure. Progress! /s
I've also got $50 on "massive fake jobs program", because the unemployment will be a social / psychological disaster even if the economics turn out to be straightforward.
> We've kind of just allowed technology to start making us all irrelevant.
That accelerated when big tech companies became advertisement companies. Suddenly, there was a push to increase time on the screen thru mass data gathering.
As far as it is profitable to keep people's noses glued to a screen there is going to be an increase on people that is alone and disconnected.
Even dating is done thru apps that promote looking for the perfect inexistent partner. The more you look for a partner and the less you get one the more profits they get. Something should have never been a business.
I spent some time on the phone with him the other day, as he wandered around the city where he's working.
It was Sunday there, most people's day off, and he was amazed at how many people were out in the public parks, playing chess and go, kids on the playground equipment. inter-generational interaction.
His impression was that China has a much higher level of people randomly interacting with other's IRL than here in the US.
this is exactly it. cities are bigger and denser. the higher population density means that you have to go out of your way to not run into someone or do something that is not common for chinese to do, like walking around in streets where there are no restaurants or shops.
46 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 39.9 ms ] threadOnly by taxing the humans and human-based corporations that ultimately pay for it. On a longer timeline, the robots are going to become full-fledged economic actors in their own right.
Zero children = you (the parent) get zero tokens
One child = the parents get 18-years worth of tokens
Two children = the parents get 2 x 18-years worth of tokens
...
In a sense, that might be a bit telling of the modern day society: in what world is it so difficult to make meaningful connections to people, that if a real human relationship can be like 5x more meaningful (made up numbers, but surely people will agree that a real relationship can have more depth) than whatever the AI can provide, and people still choose that over the real thing? Or maybe the average person kind of sucks, or the way relationships are treated sucks, or maybe the AI is like crack for impressionable brains, or people don't want a real relationship and just want some sycophantic whatever, I don't know.
Maybe it's a numbers game and some people will never find that for real (gender skew, demographics etc.), maybe it's a failing at those people not being properly socialized, maybe they themselves have something that society doesn't value ("Be yourself! No, not like that."), or just aren't pleasant for any number of reasons, don't have a third place to go for, don't have money to go and partake in social activities, have been brainwashed by hateful social media propaganda or any other mix of circumstances.
Feels like it's probably easier to ban AI and pretend all of the other issues don't exist, rather than addressing them.
People would rather chill and be single than date the wrong guy, even if they aren’t bringing much to the table themselves…
[0] - same energy as the teen girls have low self esteem due to magazine covers and instagram.
People who want to do stuff get off the apps. There are plenty of hot folks who never say yes who wind up on those apps for years.
Lots of uggos are also getting off the apps because they actually go on dates.
Personality matters a lot. Saying yes is very important. Everyone has a million excuses to say no.
I’ve been married for 15 years. When I found my wife even dating apps were much more slow paced, I just feel for the current generation.
You don't know the pain of others, especially what others hide from you.
The pain I suffer gets worse with every setback and affects my work life for extended periods of time. Past a certain point you need to weigh the risks and tradeoffs, and in my calculus, for my own survival, it swung in favor of no relationships.
Everyone has a different strategy and I prescribe nothing, that is my own way
Any sane society would have these people displayed prominently on piles. Instead you’ll continue to give them more money while the problems boil to the point of violence and societal desolation. In that sense you get what you fucking deserve.
What makes you believe this? We had this story[1] just a few days ago where Waymo up and decided to pull over and hand passengers who had guns on them over to the police. If anything, I would trust AI less to keep a conversation private and not flag me for one of its many programmed "safety" triggers.
1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49672549
~$5T/year in profits from the US, concentrated to the ~10% of American households who hold ~93% of equities, while the socioeconomic and social systems continue towards failure. Progress! /s
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49644650 (citations)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49357337 (citations)
I've also got $50 on "massive fake jobs program", because the unemployment will be a social / psychological disaster even if the economics turn out to be straightforward.
That accelerated when big tech companies became advertisement companies. Suddenly, there was a push to increase time on the screen thru mass data gathering.
As far as it is profitable to keep people's noses glued to a screen there is going to be an increase on people that is alone and disconnected.
Even dating is done thru apps that promote looking for the perfect inexistent partner. The more you look for a partner and the less you get one the more profits they get. Something should have never been a business.
It's friction right? The last 150 years of progress have been all about removing friction.
And relationships are a great source of friction.
As a side note, I think it's this push for frictionlessness, this is the same force which has resulted in the loss of meaning.
Structure and community are seen as oppressive.
At last, we have been liberated from both.
This leads to people paying for services and products they don't need which leads to an atrophying of basic skills.
It's no use, though. You need a good economic and social outlook to get people to even consider having children. And this ain't it.
I spent some time on the phone with him the other day, as he wandered around the city where he's working.
It was Sunday there, most people's day off, and he was amazed at how many people were out in the public parks, playing chess and go, kids on the playground equipment. inter-generational interaction.
His impression was that China has a much higher level of people randomly interacting with other's IRL than here in the US.
That means that if you go out for a walk you would be 10 times more likely to run into a friendly stranger who wants to chat.
most of those people were likely a bit older, already retired, and were out watching their grandchildren. sunday there is no school or kindergarten.