In the future there are no cities because there is no future. Humanity ends this century.

>>25040492
Pretty bleak thing to say since you'd be saying your kids won't survive in future neither your grandkids.

>>25040485
It depends what kind of dystopia you get. Keep in mind, there have been crowded cities since ancient Egypt, it's a safe bet.
>live in the pods, eat the bugs
Crowded police state. Nobody wants to be in the cities, but it's the only place you can rent, and you can't buy land at all. Good news it it's getting less crowded... because euthanasia is free.
>automation revolution
A few cities prosper (server farms still need a physical location) but the rest turn into Detroit. Society gets re-ordered more than the doomers expect, you don't go broke but instead of waiting tables you're wrangling robots that wait tables.
>"Interesting times"
Cities would get less popular because population density is dangerous if there's nukes or plagues or alien tripods looking for trouble. Imagine 2020 on steriods, everyone who can leave does, but everyone who stays suffers.
>>25040503
>implying anon has kinds

>>25040511
>Crowded police state. Nobody wants to be in the cities, but it's the only place you can rent, and you can't buy land at all. Good news it it's getting less crowded... because euthanasia is free.

Here's problem with this set up why would they need to live in cities anyways? Cities arise cause people wish to be near jobs but if there are no jobs what's point of living in middle of manhattan or LA? Plus you say a police state exists but would govt exist in such a future where people offer no actual worth to govt but are net drains on corporations who are being taxed to keep them alive. It's so hard to imagine a post work society since so much of life is based on us working from going to school and even politics. In a future where 90%+ of people don't work what does society look like. What would character do
>you don't go broke but instead of waiting tables you're wrangling robots that wait tables.

If robots can do jobs human do why can't robots wrangle robots themselves? I tried to think of some role or everyday life activity humans would serve

>>25040485
cities serve other purposes than simply facilitating career, business and industry. from a sexual/romantic perspective, they're meat markets. statistically speaking, it's easier to get laid or find a relationship in a place with millions of potential partners than a couple hundred. there's also the human ego. if you become a great success out in bumblefuck, who exactly is there to impress? a lot of city life is a show of wealth. likewise those who seek power aren't satisfied with dominion over a couple of boring suburbs or villages, they want power over the masses, the larger the better. for cities to not continue along as they are, these are some of the issues that would have to be addressed.

>>25040526
>it's easier to get laid or find a relationship in a place with millions of potential partners than a couple hundred

Most people date online nowadays and travel is cheap


>if you become a great success out in bumblefuck, who exactly is there to impress?

Internet is global stage now though not Hollywood boulevard


>a lot of city life is a show of wealth. likewise those who seek power aren't satisfied with dominion over a couple of boring suburbs or villages, they want power over the masses, the larger the better


Cause people still serve a use when in future a machine can outdo work of a thousand scientists and engineers what use will there be in leading a large "company". In past people used to evaluate wealth by how many horses you owned but now it's a hobby for niche portion of society. You don't see millionaires on Instagram picturing themselves near a pony but with a lambo or private jet who offer much better modes of transportation.


Plus we're already seeing a rise of people turning to AI for relationships
>https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/teens-are-flocking-to-ai-chatbots-is-this-healthy/

>>25040524
>Here's problem with this set up why would they need to live in cities anyways?
They don't need to live in cities but they can't afford to live anywhere else. And no, the people don't offer any value, that's the point of that last sentence. The government/corporations aren't going to just liquidate them all at once, they just keep them in dystopian conditions until the problem solves itself.
There's a lot of information about the "eat the bugs, live in the pod" conspiracy. If you treat it like a work of fiction it can give you some inspiration and it won't stress you out as much.
>In a future where 90%+ of people don't work what does society look like. What would character do
In that particular dystopia, they are pacified with bare minimum bread and circuses, while the population withers away.
>If robots can do jobs human do why can't robots wrangle robots themselves?
You can't vibe code yourself out of a problem you vibe coded yourself into.

>>25040503
Children are shit.

>>25040492
Nah humanity will not "end". The big countries will, but in some place, like the Amish communnity or some other closed communities that do not have access to these technologies and degenerqcies, humanity will rise again.

>>25040485
What mode of living offers the most control over the populace? Megacities.

>>25040547
>Living life as an amish
I'd rather humanity end

>>25040550
Why do you think it's so bad? Your mind is spoiled to be full of dopamine all day. 99% of humanity through history lived under worse conditions than modern Amish.

>>25040539
>They don't need to live in cities but they can't afford to live anywhere else.

Who's gonna pay for them to live in big cities With lot of infrastructure demand and resources to keep it running. Imagine thousands og water pipes , energy lines , telecommunications, bridges, sewage and other things needed to keep people alive but you need to do it in a densleu populated area with millions of people who don't work? What will happen to countless suburbs, apartments and businesses that are scattered around town. Math and logistics don't add up unless we're assuming powerful and rich are generous enough to sustain billions of people who do nothing? >>25040549
So millions of people densely packed together who do what when robots are doing everything unless they'll be forced to work fake jobs that do nothing

>>25040551
I like my NEET life thank you very much.

>>25040547
the Amish will only survive if they militarise which means they'd need to modernise

>>25040554
>option 1: replace populace with robots, don't give them food
Populace riots. All hundreds of millions of them.
>option 2: replace populace with robots, but give them free food (and heavy surveillance)
Populace doesn't riot.

>>25040555
Do you, really? Aren't you constantly depressed? You might be in comfort, but your body and mind were not made for that. You are addicted.

>>25040564
Not really. The amish do not have wealth, people can't rob them. People would rather rob the companies with AI working for them. What are you robbing? A cow or a 10k dollars computer?

>>25040575
The corpos will take their land and kill them

>>25040575
they have arable land retard

>>25040575
They're not in danger from randos, they're in danger if either >>25040576 or some future government demands they do digital ID or get Beast chipped or pasteurize their milk or something.

>>25040572
>You are addicted.
To what?
I'm able to access centuries of literature and read at my leisure.
I have the free time to create and write whenever.
I can access years of music without wasting money.
How awful.

>>25040569
>feeding people means lots of energy demands and waste of resources that only goes to sinkhole

Nearly half of current energy demand is due to humans needing to be fed and sheltered but we offset those costs by producing labor. When humans have no use is it sustainable to keep billions of people on earth who will inevitably ruin earth by destroying ecosystem to sustain human population

>>25040580
Addicted to comfort and escapism. You keep consuming and consuming and consuming and, by the end of the day, you didn't do anything else but consuming just to distract your mind.

>>25040583
>When humans have no use is it sustainable to keep billions of people on earth who will inevitably ruin earth by destroying ecosystem to sustain human population
That's why the dystopia corrals them into cities and keeps them on the bare minimum without inciting an uprising, until the population dwindles. I don't know how the fuck else to spell it out for you.

>>25040576
And don't you think billionaire corpos already want their lands? They have morals and do not sell.

>>25040590
Why not just kill them with a virus why corral them into cities supporting a population and those who escape will probably live off grid in small communes hiding from surveillance drones that routine hover around sky. So those left will be like human zoo animals

>>25040592
>they said no sale and that's that, nobody in US history ever lost their land without their consent
I'm starting to think you're either too young to be posting here, or just fucking retarded.

>>25040589
As opposed to...?

>>25040599
Bruh. Why would they go to Amish specifically and cause a genocide for lands? Don't you onow that there are hundred of thousands of kilometers with absolutely nothing in them?

>>25040606
Bruh. Why would they go to Indians specifically and cause a genocide for lands? Don't you onow that there are hundred of thousands of kilometers with absolutely nothing in them?

>>25040605
Having a reason to live. Have people depending on you and someone to depend on. Have an active and busy live that rewards you. Feeling the hug of your daughter and being proud of the achievements of your son. Have a cute and trad wife. etc etc etc.

>>25040610
Are you really comparing the conquest of an entire continent to the conquest of 1 kilometer?

Assuming that in your world natural resources are limited as they are in real life, then even completely AI-run industry is still constrained by the need for efficient use of limited resources, and densely populated cities provide efficiencies in a way that living outside of them does not. If anything, widespread use of AI and automation would tighten the parameters for efficiency to such a degree that cities would be the only livable places and all other land would be used in ways that maximize the exploitation of whatever resources it has to offer.

>>25040592
America (and the entire west) has an ever increasing ghettoised mulatto underclass that are motivated by jealousy and resentment
the Amish exist contra to this as a de facto protected minority, they will be South Africa'd eventually if they don't get serious

>>25040619
>If anything, widespread use of AI and automation would tighten the parameters for efficiency to such a degree that cities would be the only livable places and all other land would be used in ways that maximize the exploitation of whatever resources it has to offer.


If we're aiming for efficiency wouldn't culling human population be best method of doing so? Lot of energy that could go towards AI would be wasted on keeping billions of humans alive

>>25040485
Cities will be containment zones for pod-living poorfag bug eaters. Rich people will live in gated communities with plenty of lebensraum.

>>25040632
That is certainly a consideration as well. We need more information other than just 'people don't need to work anymore.'

>>25040554
>they'll be forced to work fake jobs that do nothing
That's already happening, but I digress.

The future is never so black and white as it's imagined. 90% of the population is in all likelihood never going to be without a job or working "fake jobs". You would need several factors to come together for that to happen. You need high birth rates so that population remains high in the developed world, you need rapid development of robotics and "AI" to replace those people's jobs, and you need complete and utter disregard for human beings. Those things aren't happening and that's probably not going to change any time soon.

>>25040638
I'm trying to make a somewhat realistic scenario of near future after most human labor is automated especially what we consider middle class. When there are no doctors , engineers, professors and actuaries and inevitably all human jobs.
>>25040641
What defines a lot of first workd countries is existence of middle class which is non existent in third world. And American middle middle class prop up American industries that act as supportive agents. Everyday millions of people wake up and commute to their offices 10 miles out working at a cubicle doing computer work. What happens when corporations realize AI can do it much faster and cheaper plus if you don't automate you'll be outmatched by a company that does.

Plus fictional narrative is attempt of me visualizing sci fi future where jobs are automated anon not what if.

>>25040616
What the fuck kind of twitter argument is this?
The government already fucked with the Amish a few times. If your argument is that "oh they'd never do that" then go drink fluoride somewhere else.
I don't even know how we got on this topic.

>>25040613
Sounds like a pain in the ass and something society forces on to you.

>>25040650
>When there are no doctors , engineers, professors and actuaries and inevitably all human jobs.
Even today, a lot of people's jobs aren't "necessary" but they sell things (or services) to people with more vital jobs (who have more money). Think about streamers, they don't really provide the economy anything tangible but people who do then spend the money downstream. With mass automation you might end up with only 10% of the population having "real" jobs but they pay for entertainment, goods, services, basically they are the economy as far as the rest of the humans are concerned.

>>25040632
>If we're aiming for efficiency wouldn't culling human population be best method of doing so?
You can't just openly kill people when there are so many people to kill. The potential for that getting out of your hands and undermining all of your work is too great. You'd want control of the situation, that means subtlety, and that means a multifaceted approach, and that means playing the long game. You attack from all sides very quietly. You do things like poison their food and their medicine, hurt them economically, destroy the nuclear family, encourage feminism, abortion, sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, race mixing, limit their education so that they don't have the words and concepts to fight back ideologically, and isolate and surveil them to limit opportunities to organize any kind of meaningful resistance, and subvert them in the event they manage to anyway. I'm not saying that we live under such a system, I'm saying that it you could hardly design a better one than what we have now.

>>25040656
One must imaginne Sisyphus happy.

>>25040668
That's taking into a consideration pre AI world in a future where machines can make methods of killing so silent that people will get viruses that turn them suicidal there won't be a need to slowly cull masses to not ruin your project. I don't think elites will kill all of humanity but might attempt to have it be under 1 billion via a virus or some other method that doesn't point to them obviously.

In a future where military , surveillance and you can predict behavior people days ahead there'll be less need for control since you have total control.

File: 1762859135207853.png (56 KB, 256x256)

56 KB PNG

>>25040641
>90% of the population is in all likelihood never going to be without a job or working "fake jobs"
The last ilo weso report says labor force participation is 47.4% for women and 72.3% for men, across the population it's lower as children and elderly don't have jobs. 23.5% of 15-24 globally are NEET

>>25040650
In the near future it is not realistic that human labor would have been made obsolete. Even now, we can have fully automated homes, nearly fully automated cooking appliances, self-driving cars, etc., but it all comes at a great price. How do people make money in this near future? Is no one charging for the services provided by automation? If so, how were the people who ran government and industry replaced with decent human beings? Where did greed go? And again, resources are still an issue. Cities are more efficient because large numbers of people can be served by the same process. Imagine everyone in your world has food fabricators that can pop out whatever meal you want like the Jetsons. There is still some raw material used by that machine, and that material has to be extracted, processed and delivered from somewhere, and that is far more efficient going to one place than dozens or hundreds in a world where the population has spread out all over the place. Sure, delivery is great, but more delivery = more maintenance, more repairs, more parts, more gasoline/electricity/solar panels/whatever, regardless of whether human operators are involved. Unless you solve the problems of resource scarcity (real or artificially imposed by those whom it benefits to keep things artificially scarce) and greed, I can't imagine things would be all that different.

>>25040485
Wall-E

>>25040650
>What defines a lot of first workd countries is existence of middle class
That's not what defines the first world. It's been a feature of the first world in recent history. It's becoming less and less a feature.
>What happens when corporations realize AI can do it much faster and cheaper plus if you don't automate you'll be outmatched by a company that does.
A lot of assumptions and very vague generalizations here. There's hardly even a question for me to answer.
>What happens when corporations realize AI can do it much faster and cheaper
"AI" isn't anywhere near meaningfully replacing large swathes of white collar workers any time soon. You're falling for the sales pitch, which is essentially that LLMs have have been on this exponential trajectory, which is true, and so that trend is going to continue, which is not. That are a lot of limiting factors to the effectiveness of LLMs, and growth falls off as we approach those ceilings. The number of jobs that LLMs can do better than humans are very few. They can do many tasks better than the average human, but they need to be directed, they need to be supervised, and they need to be fact checked. They're tools, not replacements for tool users.
>Plus fictional narrative is attempt of me visualizing sci fi future where jobs are automated anon not what if.
I'm trying to help you ground that in reality. That's not a near future, and the process is not nearly as disruptive as you're imagining.

>>25040680
>Even now, we can have fully automated homes, nearly fully automated cooking appliances, self-driving cars, etc., but it all comes at a great price. How do people make money in this near future? Is no one charging for the services provided by automation?


It'll be between rich and asset owning class though who can trade with each other cause they have legions of "slaves" robots and resources to shell out. It'll be feudalism all over again but avg human won't even be a present who offers a use to his master but is a negative to his master. And any generous billionaire will be out matched by one who uses his money to enrich himself only.


>Imagine everyone in your world has food fabricators that can pop out whatever meal you want like the Jetsons. There is still some raw material used by that machine, and that material has to be extracted, processed and delivered from somewhere, and that is far more efficient going to one place than dozens or hundreds in a world where the population has spread out all over the place.


How would billions of people pay for these machines who give them resources ? Will govt give you a UBI by taking money from rich to distribute it amongst billions of people who do nothing?

There will have to be massive population reduction before we see any of these near utopian societies

File: Screen Shot 2026-01-23 at(...).png (3.48 MB, 2560x1600)

3.48 MB PNG

Sorry city slickers but the future is villagization.
Advanced tech makes urban hubs redundant, decentralized networks are now possible and desirable. People will prefer to live in smaller communities than in dystopian megacities.
The future belongs to village chads.

>>25040676
That's a reasonable consideration. The kind of control you'd need to curb the population over generations without revolution already exists and would likely be well underway long before there's actually artificial intelligence, if there ever is.
>can make methods of killing so silent that people will get viruses
We don't need machines to do that for us.
>there won't be a need to slowly cull masses to not ruin your project.
I'm saying there could be no need to mass cull anyone, because by the time the project is ready, it could be done already.
>n a future where military , surveillance and you can predict behavior people days ahead
We live in a time where that's already true.

>>25040678
That's not an argument against what I said.

>>25040689
>That's not what defines the first world. It's been a feature of the first world in recent history. It's becoming less and less a feature.

That’s mixing things up. It didn’t just randomly become a first-world feature it stuck around for decades because the conditions supported it. If it’s going away, that’s a sign the conditions are changing, not that it never counted.


>A lot of assumptions and very vague generalizations here. There's hardly even a question for me to answer.

It’s not that vague though. The point is simple if AI does the job cheaper and faster, companies that don’t use it lose. That’s a real incentive anon that will affect market.


>"AI" isn't anywhere near meaningfully replacing large swathes of white collar workers any time soon. You're falling for the sales pitch, which is essentially that LLMs have have been on this exponential trajectory, which is true, and so that trend is going to continue, which is not. That are a lot of limiting factors to the effectiveness of LLMs, and growth falls off as we approach those ceilings. The number of jobs that LLMs can do better than humans are very few. They can do many tasks better than the average human, but they need to be directed, they need to be supervised, and they need to be fact checked. They're tools, not replacements for tool users.

Pan out far enough and the question becomes if AI isn’t meant to automate core intellectual work, then what problem is it actually trying to solve? Marginal convenience doesn’t justify this level of effort and capital.

>>25040696
>We live in a time where that's already true.

Yes but it still requires millions of people to fuel it with families and friends. But moment security apparatus and the medical , scientific and engineering is all done by AI amount of people with ties to rest of humanity will dwindle? Plus once masses realize they are losing their jobs and being left behind won't they desire violence against these tech oligarchs? We're already seeing it right now with hate for Zuckerberg, Sam Altman and musk. Now imagine if these people replace their jobs and destroy their
Opportunities for upward mobility. It'll be a necessity to deal with a growing resentful population who will be a drain on society.

File: 1767049288644087.jpg (86 KB, 523x739)

86 KB JPG

>>25040696
>That's not an argument against what I said.
It's just correcting a stat, I leave the theorycraf to other anons

>>25040697
>It didn’t just randomly become a first-world feature
I didn't say that it did.
>it stuck around for decades because the conditions supported it.
I stuck around for decades because consumerism was the most effective use of the remains of the wartime economy of WWII. It's coming to end because there's no longer wealth to extract.
>If it’s going away
By and large, it is.
> that’s a sign the conditions are changing, not that it never counted.
I didn't say that it "never counted". I said that it's not the defining feature of the first world.
>It’s not that vague though.
It is.
>The point is simple if AI does the job cheaper and faster, companies that don’t use it lose.
We don't have AI, and it's not a given that we ever will. LLMs don't do the jobs of most humans much cheaper or much faster, let alone both. It's not a real incentive, because it's not real.
>if AI isn’t meant to automate core intellectual work, then what problem is it actually trying to solve?
That might be a goal of AI, which again, doesn't exist and may never. It's not a meaningful goal of LLMs at this point, because that goal exists outside of their capabilities. The problems that can be reliably solved by LLMs without significant human interaction are very simple and very limited. LLMs are most useful as tools for human operators.
>Marginal convenience doesn’t justify this level of effort and capital.
You fundamentally misunderstand the nature of what's happening. Our economy operates on belief. It doesn't matter if LLMs are the future or not, what matters is if people believe they are. We're investing in a bubble, not because it's the future, but because we need a bubble to prop up our economy for the short term and because there's money to be made on the upside and the downside of it.

>>25040702
>Yes but it still requires millions of people to fuel it with families and friends.
Digital data collection is nearly autonomous. Analysis is partly autonomous. We don't need millions of people for that, there's just an opportunity for millions of people to make money from it.
>But moment security apparatus and the medical , scientific and engineering is all done by AI
It's a massive assumption that that moment ever comes. We can discuss it as a hypothetical, an "if", but I won't entertain it as a certainty, a "when". Parts of the security apparatus' work could be done by artificial intelligence. Parts of it cannot. That's because digital security doesn't really exist and the illusion of it can't ever exist without physical, analog security. That's a special case for a couple of reasons, but one of the general principals applies to medicine, to science, to engineering. Allowing for total automation allows for them to set their own goals, and those won't be our goals.
>amount of people with ties to rest of humanity will dwindle?
I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say here, ESLkun.

>>25040702
>once masses realize they are losing their jobs and being left behind won't they desire violence against these tech oligarchs?
A very loaded question, so many assumptions. In a word, no. This is the kind of problem you have when transformation and disruption happens in a very short time frame, not when it happens on scales over times longer than any human life. What meaningful resistance was there to the industrial revolution? What meaningful resistance was there to the internet? What meaningful resistance do you see around you to LLMs? Sure, people want it, or they say they do, and they talk about it, complain about it, but they don't do anything about it, not in a way that's truly disruptive.
> We're already seeing it right now with hate for Zuckerberg, Sam Altman and musk.
Yeah, everybody hates the railroad barons, too. They still built the railroads.
>It'll be a necessity to deal with a growing resentful population who will be a drain on society.
I don't agree. Again, the scale of time we're talking about really reduces the impact, and there is today, in theory, no shortage of mechanisms to manage that problem before it ever becomes one.

>>25040718
>We're investing in a bubble, not because it's the future, but because we need a bubble to prop up our economy for the short term and because there's money to be made on the upside and the downside of it.

makes it sound like trillions are being burned just to keep vibes up. Bubbles happen, but they usually form around real utility, not in a vacuum. You don’t get this level of repeat investment without something tangible underneath.

>We don't have AI, and it's not a given that we ever will. LLMs don't do the jobs of most humans much cheaper or much faster, let alone both. It's not a real incentive, because it's not real.

This is getting hung up on definitions. Full human replacement isn’t required for incentives to be real. If tools let one person do the work of several, that already changes hiring and wages.

“AI doesn’t exist” is mostly semantic. Companies don’t care what you call it; they care that output per worker goes up and costs go down.

LLMs don’t need to solve all intellectual work to matter. Partial automation, even on narrow tasks, is enough to reshape labor over time.

>>25040738
>What meaningful resistance was there to the industrial revolution? What meaningful resistance was there to the internet? What meaningful resistance do you see around you to LLMs? Sure, people want it, or they say they do, and they talk about it, complain about it, but they don't do anything about it, not in a way that's truly disruptive.

I don’t think those comparisons really hold. The industrial revolution and the internet created new mass employment and new paths to upward mobility, even if they displaced people along the way. The social contract stayed intact because most people could still plug back in somewhere.


>I don't agree. Again, the scale of time we're talking about really reduces the impact, and there is today, in theory, no shortage of mechanisms to manage that problem before it ever becomes one.

Longer timelines don’t fix exclusion, they just stretch it out. If large numbers of people end up with no real path to mobility, resentment still accumulates.

Saying “mechanisms exist” isn’t an answer unless they’re actually deployed at scale and seen as legitimate. Managing people is not the same as giving them a stake.

If a population feels permanently sidelined, time doesn’t defuse that

>Digital data collection is nearly autonomous. Analysis is partly autonomous. We don't need millions of people for that, there's just an opportunity for millions of people to make money from it.


Even if data collection and analysis become largely automated the entire tech stack still depends on millions of people to exist electricity generation and grid maintenance chip fabrication PCB assembly cooling construction logistics and maintenance are all human intensive and not remotely autonomous at scale You can automate the output and still rely on a vast human labor base to keep the system alive

>>25040748
>makes it sound like trillions are being burned just to keep vibes up.
Yes, that's more or less how it works. "Consumer confidence" is what controls the stock market. The stock market is what drives the economy, because we don't have a real economy.
>Bubbles happen, but they usually form around real utility,
On the contrary. Bubbles happen because the perceived utility isn't real. Sometimes utility has absolutely nothing to do with it at all.
>You don’t get this level of repeat investment without something tangible underneath.
Sure you do. Tulip Mania. In this case, the same thing that happened with the .com bubble is going to happen with LLMs. Most everyone in the market is going to get killed the players positioned to capitalize on it when they do will emerge on the other side.
>This is getting hung up on definitions.
The definition of words is incredibly important if we're going to effectively convey information to other people.
>If tools let one person do the work of several, that already changes hiring and wages.
I don't disagree. That isn't the replacement of everyone's jobs, and that's what you were talking about.
>“AI doesn’t exist” is mostly semantic.
No, it isn't. Large Language Models are not artificially intelligent.
>Companies don’t care what you call it
Oh, yes they do, very much so. "AI" companies in particular, but that flows downstream. That's exactly why you and hundreds of millions of people conflate LLMs with AI, because that's how they've marketed it to you, because it benefits them to do so.
>LLMs don’t need to solve all intellectual work to matter.
I didn't say they did. I said they can't, and I said AI, if such a thing is possible, probably never will either.
>Partial automation, even on narrow tasks, is enough to reshape labor over time.
I've been alluding to that the entire time. It's a big part of why "AI" isn't so disruptive as this concept of the future imagines.

>>25040756
>I don’t think those comparisons really hold.
I don't think you have the ground to stand on for your opinion on that to matter.
>The industrial revolution and the internet created new mass employment and new paths to upward mobility
And so will LLMs.
>Longer timelines don’t fix exclusion
They do, by increasing adaptability.
>Saying “mechanisms exist” isn’t an answer unless they’re actually deployed at scale and seen as legitimate.
I've already given you a very brief summary of some of those mechanisms in this thread. They are deployed at scale, they are seen as legitimate, and they're not seen as population control by virtually anyone.
>Managing people is not the same as giving them a stake.
No, it's not. It's what you do in lieu of giving them a stake. They won't have one, because they don't have one now.
>If a population feels permanently sidelined, time doesn’t defuse that
If. But they don't. They feel some of the effects of being permanently sidelined, but they're not aware that they have been. It's already happened.
>>25040756
>Even if data collection and analysis become largely automated
There's no if. It is already.
> the entire tech stack still depends on millions of people to exist electricity generation and grid maintenance chip fabrication PCB assembly cooling construction logistics and maintenance are all human intensive and not remotely autonomous at scale
I agree. You can count them among the many, many jobs that LLMS are never going to replace.

>>25040564
Amish would need to make changes to their religion/social codes. They are extreme pacifists
>>25040575
The cows duh. Why do you think we have GMO pushed on us so forcefully? (((They))) hate the idea of self sufficiency as it cuts into corpo profit

>>25040592
They spread GMO seeds on the wind and conveniently find them during the yearly mandated check. If you dont shell out for a license to use GMO they will confiscate your land. Ive seen it happen many times in casey county ky decade or so ago.

>>25040693
Psycho pass enjoyer

>>25040485
I like the megabuilding concept - vertical slums