>Politicians now want to use AI to predict crimesThis movie was prescient
>>222543893>This movie was prescientSpielberg brought together like 20 of the top futurists to come up with tech they thought we would have in 30 years. They were right.
>>222544019to be fair it's pretty easy to estimate what governments will do. if it increases tax revenue and expands bureaucracy in any way, you can be sure that at some point politicians will ramrod it down our throats.
>>222543893The original story was written in the 50s and had a more realistic (depressing) ending. Read PKD, he more than any author understood where the world was going.
>>222543893It's adapted from a Phillip K Dick book you utter plebian.
>>222545134whats that supposed to mean
>>222545113>had a more realistic (depressing) endingSo what is it?
>predict crimes Just go to a black neighborhood, we don’t need technology to figure that out lol
>>222544934Lol they don't even need inflated bureaucracy to feign ineptitude. They just straight up axe entire departments and programs and replace them with nothing
>>222543893Only difference is that human predictors are fallible.
>>222543893It also kicks ass.
>>222545134And he managed to adapt it nicely which is in of itself a big feat you king nigger. Don’t you read books? Can’t you think?
>>222544934If it's so easy to predict why are there no movies about "Think of the Children" bullshit banning everything sex related?
>>222548498Demolition man the giver
Crimes that didnt happen, mind you. So where is the actual legal basis?
>>222545134Did OP say otherwise? I don't get this kind of unreasonably angry replies that gets you worked up for nothing
>>222543893Can we predict politicians being criminals?
>>222548547Can we palantir the people who created palantir?
