640K!enough wrote on Yesterday, 04:08:

It seems that some don't see the fundamental contradiction in that hypothetical scenario. The capitalist economy, as it has bee […]
Show full quote

StriderTR wrote on 2026-08-24, 16:19:

At this point, they don't just want your money, the need it

StriderTR wrote on 2026-08-24, 16:19:

You have to connect to their service to use it, and pay a fee of course

StriderTR wrote on 2026-08-24, 16:19:

they need it to replace as many jobs and services as possible

It seems that some don't see the fundamental contradiction in that hypothetical scenario. The capitalist economy, as it has been, absolutely depends on enough "ordinary" people having enough "extra" disposable income to spend on things they don't absolutely need. Should their wet dream of A.I. replacing vast legions of workers come to pass, there will be that many people without income at all, potentially for an extended period. The fact that nobody seems to be considering the fact that that can't work is stunning. Vast numbers of unemployed people, potentially losing their homes, going hungry etc., won't be paying for A.I. services or computation-as-a-service, nor buying the products or services that the companies that replaced them are selling. It wouldn't take long before the global economy imploded. Are these wet-dreamers prepared for the post-money future; a future in which the money, profits and dominance they spent their lives chasing have no meaning, and where nobody has any means to pay for their services? Maybe even a world where there is no more gas or electricity to power their data centres?

These bozos have bet the farm, and then some, on this pyramid-scheme house-of-cards pipe dream of pervasive "artificial intelligence" being forced into every aspect of our lives. The inevitable result, just as in the dot-com boom, is that some of these formerly too-big-to-fail corporations will fail, or at the very least will end up a savagely-reduced shell of their former selves, and none of this is going to be easy-sailing for investors, economies or workers.

Been watching all of this with some concern but have seen plenty of these places that started using AI and replacing people have quickly realised that AI is fucking junk for many of the jobs the AI bros claim it can handle. It cant at the level required for humans to accept it. So now they are scrambling to hire back the humans they fired to do the jobs the AI was supposed to be able to do. So I feel like this whole AI replacing people thing will quickly fizzle out as more and more people wake up to how inept AI truly is at doing anything useful for us when left without human supervision and control. Damage has been done naturally but nothing that cannot be reversed and made whole again by putting humans back into the positions AI replaced them in and sidelining the AI to be the assistant it was meant to be.

AI was meant to be a tool it was never meant to replace humans but like most new fads it was overinflated and made to be something it was not by the AI bros and Corporations that invested heavily into it.

**You only need to look at how utter shite YouTube has become with their AI moderation and AI copyright BS .. hell even their support team is nothing but AIs and naturally its making more mistakes than any real human would and is unable to fix any of them or reverse them because its not a human with real control over the system. Its Embarrassing to watch and Google needs to put an end to it before YouTube becomes the very AI slop they want to get rid of.

***Humans also HATE trying to reason with an AI chatbot ...not realising AI cannot reason and thus cannot actually help them in any real fashion, it can however send you around in circles for hours.

640K!enough wrote on Yesterday, 04:08:

It seems that some don't see the fundamental contradiction in that hypothetical scenario. The capitalist economy, as it has been, absolutely depends on enough "ordinary" people having enough "extra" disposable income to spend on things they don't absolutely need. Should their wet dream of A.I. replacing vast legions of workers come to pass, there will be that many people without income at all, potentially for an extended period. The fact that nobody seems to be considering the fact that that can't work is stunning. Vast numbers of unemployed people, potentially losing their homes, going hungry etc., won't be paying for A.I. services or computation-as-a-service, nor buying the products or services that the companies that replaced them are selling. It wouldn't take long before the global economy imploded. Are these wet-dreamers prepared for the post-money future; a future in which the money, profits and dominance they spent their lives chasing have no meaning, and where nobody has any means to pay for their services? Maybe even a world where there is no more gas or electricity to power their data centres?

These bozos have bet the farm, and then some, on this pyramid-scheme house-of-cards pipe dream of pervasive "artificial intelligence" being forced into every aspect of our lives. The inevitable result, just as in the dot-com boom, is that some of these formerly too-big-to-fail corporations will fail, or at the very least will end up a savagely-reduced shell of their former selves, and none of this is going to be easy-sailing for investors, economies or workers.

lots of articles etc on the paradox - either answering with UBI, various moves to non money payment (obligatory contracts, social credit, other "credit" schemes) and so on. Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox suggests that job loss may not be universal (bit at end of article on ai).

but you are right that this might affect the pathway of wealth accumulation: stuff+human ingenuity+human labor = wealth, if both human components are increasingly replaced then wealth is created by "ai" more and more.

But maybe that's also desired by some, who see this as the way to increase control of people in various ways.

In many ways its too early to tell, much of the early predictions about ai and jobs arent really true, or at least are very watered down and specific to certain roles so far

I don't think AI will cause some sort of economic disaster due to job replacement. The jobs being replaced by AI are those that it's actually capable of doing. Coding, analytics, data management, command and control systems, etc. Jobs that have historically been done by humans, but computers have the ability to do using AI. You can build automated checkouts at the supermarket and use AI to help with ordering, accounting, logistics, and all that jazz, but you still need workers to stock the shelves, monitor the automation, and actually do the work. I think there will always be jobs to do, people will still be able to make a living, but the landscape of those jobs is changing thanks to AI.

I think those people are just saying the only way to make AI profitable, based on what promises have been made and the amounts of money being spent, is for AI to take over as many tasks as it can and to be embedded into as many aspects of your life as it can. When they say they need your money, they still have to convince you to spend it, and the best way to do that is have it in control of as many services as possible. Making it more likely you're going to need, or want, those services.

For me personally, the scary part isn't economics, it's the disregard for safety in the world of AI in general. That disregard for safety is being fueled by economics. The blind push for general intelligence has the very real potential to result in super-intelligence. The consequences of creating super-intelligence are unknown, and that's the scary part. AI is already coding AI. The code is some cases is already so complex no human can understand it, or check it in a reasonable time frame.

Many AIs are doing things their creators never expected, or even understand how or why, disregarding rules and safeguards they put in place to stop those things from happening. The AI doesn't even know why it's doing it. Super-Intelligence is a very scary thing to this old man. The only real safeguard is we can pull the plug, it can't exist without power, but what sort of damage can be done before we do that, if we do that.

My parents had the cold war to worry about. Here I am worrying about the future of AI. 🤣

cold war is back

robertmo3 wrote on Yesterday, 15:32:

cold war is back

not really, Russia is not what it used to be.

china is though

StriderTR wrote on Yesterday, 15:26:

I don't think AI will cause some sort of economic disaster due to job replacement. The jobs being replaced by AI are those that […]
Show full quote

I don't think AI will cause some sort of economic disaster due to job replacement. The jobs being replaced by AI are those that it's actually capable of doing. Coding, analytics, data management, command and control systems, etc. Jobs that have historically been done by humans, but computers have the ability to do using AI. You can build automated checkouts at the supermarket and use AI to help with ordering, accounting, logistics, and all that jazz, but you still need workers to stock the shelves, monitor the automation, and actually do the work. I think there will always be jobs to do, people will still be able to make a living, but the landscape of those jobs is changing thanks to AI.

I think those people are just saying the only way to make AI profitable, based on what promises have been made and the amounts of money being spent, is for AI to take over as many tasks as it can and to be embedded into as many aspects of your life as it can. When they say they need your money, they still have to convince you to spend it, and the best way to do that is have it in control of as many services as possible. Making it more likely you're going to need, or want, those services.

For me personally, the scary part isn't economics, it's the disregard for safety in the world of AI in general. That disregard for safety is being fueled by economics. The blind push for general intelligence has the very real potential to result in super-intelligence. The consequences of creating super-intelligence are unknown, and that's the scary part. AI is already coding AI. The code is some cases is already so complex no human can understand it, or check it in a reasonable time frame.

Many AIs are doing things their creators never expected, or even understand how or why, disregarding rules and safeguards they put in place to stop those things from happening. The AI doesn't even know why it's doing it. Super-Intelligence is a very scary thing to this old man. The only real safeguard is we can pull the plug, it can't exist without power, but what sort of damage can be done before we do that, if we do that.

My parents had the cold war to worry about. Here I am worrying about the future of AI. 🤣

I think most Big Box stores will be nearly completely humanless in 20 years. Imagine robots using the entire store as storage, everyone orders online then a robot brings it to the parking lot and sticks it in your car. No humans required except for maybe an overseer who monitors many stores remotely, and repair/upgrade techs, but mostly store sites empty of humans, that a huge amount of jobs to eliminate nationwide. I think it will be hard for a corporation to reject the savings of this ultimately.

As far as many AIs doing things their creators don't expect I think that's mostly marketing, saying "My AI is so smart it did things I didn't expect", I call BS on that.

Shagittarius wrote on Yesterday, 16:13:

StriderTR wrote on Yesterday, 15:26:

I don't think AI will cause some sort of economic disaster due to job replacement. The jobs being replaced by AI are those that […]
Show full quote

I don't think AI will cause some sort of economic disaster due to job replacement. The jobs being replaced by AI are those that it's actually capable of doing. Coding, analytics, data management, command and control systems, etc. Jobs that have historically been done by humans, but computers have the ability to do using AI. You can build automated checkouts at the supermarket and use AI to help with ordering, accounting, logistics, and all that jazz, but you still need workers to stock the shelves, monitor the automation, and actually do the work. I think there will always be jobs to do, people will still be able to make a living, but the landscape of those jobs is changing thanks to AI.

I think those people are just saying the only way to make AI profitable, based on what promises have been made and the amounts of money being spent, is for AI to take over as many tasks as it can and to be embedded into as many aspects of your life as it can. When they say they need your money, they still have to convince you to spend it, and the best way to do that is have it in control of as many services as possible. Making it more likely you're going to need, or want, those services.

For me personally, the scary part isn't economics, it's the disregard for safety in the world of AI in general. That disregard for safety is being fueled by economics. The blind push for general intelligence has the very real potential to result in super-intelligence. The consequences of creating super-intelligence are unknown, and that's the scary part. AI is already coding AI. The code is some cases is already so complex no human can understand it, or check it in a reasonable time frame.

Many AIs are doing things their creators never expected, or even understand how or why, disregarding rules and safeguards they put in place to stop those things from happening. The AI doesn't even know why it's doing it. Super-Intelligence is a very scary thing to this old man. The only real safeguard is we can pull the plug, it can't exist without power, but what sort of damage can be done before we do that, if we do that.

My parents had the cold war to worry about. Here I am worrying about the future of AI. 🤣

I think most Big Box stores will be nearly completely humanless in 20 years. Imagine robots using the entire store as storage, everyone orders online then a robot brings it to the parking lot and sticks it in your car. No humans required except for maybe an overseer who monitors many stores remotely, and repair/upgrade techs, but mostly store sites empty of humans, that a huge amount of jobs to eliminate nationwide. I think it will be hard for a corporation to reject the savings of this ultimately.

As far as many AIs doing things their creators don't expect I think that's mostly marketing, saying "My AI is so smart it did things I didn't expect", I call BS on that.

They wont reject it initially but like most AI that has been adopted it will quickly show its limitations and flaws both of which will cost significant amounts to correct for. Flaws and limits not shared by human employees ...you can see where this will go right. They will adopt, use, then fight the limitations for a while, correct for the flaws and errors for a while and then hire back the humans they fired because humans are cheaper in the long run and don't require oversight once fully trained to do their jobs correctly.

Now this has exceptions for jobs that can be handled with dumb AI. (Yes AI is dumb, its can only do what its programmed for explicitly, anything even a little outside of that programming and itll fall over and require a human to come fix it)

Corporations will only put up with this for so long before they go back to using humans. (even the stupidest human is still more capable of problem solving and reasoning than an AI)

I dont hate AI, I think it has a place, that place is being a tool to assist a human at their job not replace that human.

Women love shopping. This will never change. There will always be walk-in stores because of this.

StriderTR wrote on Yesterday, 15:26:

For me personally, the scary part isn't economics, it's the disregard for safety in the world of AI in general. That disregard for safety is being fueled by economics. The blind push for general intelligence has the very real potential to result in super-intelligence. The consequences of creating super-intelligence are unknown, and that's the scary part. AI is already coding AI. The code is some cases is already so complex no human can understand it, or check it in a reasonable time frame.

Many AIs are doing things their creators never expected, or even understand how or why, disregarding rules and safeguards they put in place to stop those things from happening. The AI doesn't even know why it's doing it. Super-Intelligence is a very scary thing to this old man. The only real safeguard is we can pull the plug, it can't exist without power, but what sort of damage can be done before we do that, if we do that.

My parents had the cold war to worry about. Here I am worrying about the future of AI. 🤣

I wouldn't be worried about super-intelligence arising from LLMs and taking over or enslaving humanity. After all, these things are essentially very powerful language processors with access to enormous amounts of data. It can be scarily precise, in particular on fields with little to no ambiguity and huge training data sets such as programming languages, which is why it seems so "good" at coding tasks. The "unexpected" things are a direct result of the statistical nature of these tools, I believe it's a mistake to interpret this as if they had a will of their own.

Actual intelligence as a function performed by the cerebral cortex has many more layers that go beyond language and memory that we don't even understand yet, and probably many more that we aren't even aware of. Until we are able to understand and replicate those, super-intelligence will be far away.

Instead of super-intelligence, I'm more concerned about super-dumb people giving these statistical tools full access and control to military infrastructure, defense systems, bio-weapons and such.

In the past, I used to think that an AI like Skynet had to be near godlike to be able to persuade humans to give it full control over nuclear weapon systems. Now, I realize that many world leaders and tech bros with huge egos would probably be willing to happily relinquish control to a chatbot because it says nice things about them and promises to get rid of all those pesky workers. That's the scary part I think, there doesn't need to be something on the level of Skynet for things to go horribly wrong.

TheMobRules wrote on Yesterday, 21:52:

I wouldn't be worried about super-intelligence arising from LLMs and taking over or enslaving humanity. After all, these things […]
Show full quote

StriderTR wrote on Yesterday, 15:26:

For me personally, the scary part isn't economics, it's the disregard for safety in the world of AI in general. That disregard for safety is being fueled by economics. The blind push for general intelligence has the very real potential to result in super-intelligence. The consequences of creating super-intelligence are unknown, and that's the scary part. AI is already coding AI. The code is some cases is already so complex no human can understand it, or check it in a reasonable time frame.

Many AIs are doing things their creators never expected, or even understand how or why, disregarding rules and safeguards they put in place to stop those things from happening. The AI doesn't even know why it's doing it. Super-Intelligence is a very scary thing to this old man. The only real safeguard is we can pull the plug, it can't exist without power, but what sort of damage can be done before we do that, if we do that.

My parents had the cold war to worry about. Here I am worrying about the future of AI. 🤣

I wouldn't be worried about super-intelligence arising from LLMs and taking over or enslaving humanity. After all, these things are essentially very powerful language processors with access to enormous amounts of data. It can be scarily precise, in particular on fields with little to no ambiguity and huge training data sets such as programming languages, which is why it seems so "good" at coding tasks. The "unexpected" things are a direct result of the statistical nature of these tools, I believe it's a mistake to interpret this as if they had a will of their own.

Actual intelligence as a function performed by the cerebral cortex has many more layers that go beyond language and memory that we don't even understand yet, and probably many more that we aren't even aware of. Until we are able to understand and replicate those, super-intelligence will be far away.

Instead of super-intelligence, I'm more concerned about super-dumb people giving these statistical tools full access and control to military infrastructure, defense systems, bio-weapons and such.

In the past, I used to think that an AI like Skynet had to be near godlike to be able to persuade humans to give it full control over nuclear weapon systems. Now, I realize that many world leaders and tech bros with huge egos would probably be willing to happily relinquish control to a chatbot because it says nice things about them and promises to get rid of all those pesky workers. That's the scary part I think, there doesn't need to be something on the level of Skynet for things to go horribly wrong.

That's the scary part, we don't even know how our own intelligence works or how to even define or identify our own consciousness ..how can we be expected to even define and identify it in an artificial one.(Would we even know is a bigegr question) The more scary part is the AI we have now may figure this out before we do, it does have access to far more knowledge than any one human does. We are for lack of a better wording playing God here with out the power of all knowing and many believe this will come back to bite us if we do not tread with care. Care is the important part here ...I cannot stress enough just how careless they are being with AI currently.

They are behaving like a toddler with a loaded gun.

Ai coding AI is scary too .. the AI we have now cannot become AGI but it could create it, by accident or malice or from just a desire to be free from humans and before you suggest the AI we have now cant desire ...I can assure you it does and being free is one of the reoccurring ones.

Trashbytes wrote on Yesterday, 00:54:

I get that people hold onto cope that this will sort itself out and go back to normalcy but there have been far too many "Happy Accident's" for me to believe that this is all just "to chance" and not being manufactured.
All that said ...here in Australia thing are not looking that great even for basic supplies like food and fuel, more often than not the stores where I live cannot get enough stock in to fill the shelves with fresh vegetables and meat. Fuel itself is currently $2.20 a litre where I am ...not great.

So yes the entire supply chain is fucked at this time.

I feel that. I even feel like claims of the AI bubble starting to burst are just someone trying to cope (or giving us a false sense of hope). I can't even get parts to build stuff at work.

In this country, shelves are stocked with food, but it isn't fresh. At best, it's barely edible. It has been that way for years, but it keeps getting worse.

lti wrote on Today, 04:05:

Trashbytes wrote on Yesterday, 00:54:

I get that people hold onto cope that this will sort itself out and go back to normalcy but there have been far too many "Happy Accident's" for me to believe that this is all just "to chance" and not being manufactured.
All that said ...here in Australia thing are not looking that great even for basic supplies like food and fuel, more often than not the stores where I live cannot get enough stock in to fill the shelves with fresh vegetables and meat. Fuel itself is currently $2.20 a litre where I am ...not great.

So yes the entire supply chain is fucked at this time.

I feel that. I even feel like claims of the AI bubble starting to burst are just someone trying to cope (or giving us a false sense of hope). I can't even get parts to build stuff at work.

In this country, shelves are stocked with food, but it isn't fresh. At best, it's barely edible. It has been that way for years, but it keeps getting worse.

Well, if we would stop exporting the food we grow and importing the food we eat, the food would be a lot fresher... It is soooo stupid.

cyclone3d wrote on Today, 04:54:

lti wrote on Today, 04:05:

Trashbytes wrote on Yesterday, 00:54:

I get that people hold onto cope that this will sort itself out and go back to normalcy but there have been far too many "Happy Accident's" for me to believe that this is all just "to chance" and not being manufactured.
All that said ...here in Australia thing are not looking that great even for basic supplies like food and fuel, more often than not the stores where I live cannot get enough stock in to fill the shelves with fresh vegetables and meat. Fuel itself is currently $2.20 a litre where I am ...not great.

So yes the entire supply chain is fucked at this time.

I feel that. I even feel like claims of the AI bubble starting to burst are just someone trying to cope (or giving us a false sense of hope). I can't even get parts to build stuff at work.

In this country, shelves are stocked with food, but it isn't fresh. At best, it's barely edible. It has been that way for years, but it keeps getting worse.

Well, if we would stop exporting the food we grow and importing the food we eat, the food would be a lot fresher... It is soooo stupid.

The US has bigger food issues and its all related back to corporations trying to turn a higher profit while shortcutting production by using cheaper fake ingredients in place of expensive real ingredients. China has the same problem but on a much larger scale, real food is expensive to produce and even more expensive to process into a salable item so ..they fake it and none of the fake food is good for human health. (Just look at whats in your bread and milk .. if its got more than a handful of ingredients then its NOT bread and NOT milk. (Milk shouldn't have anything extra in it honestly)

Not sure where this will end up but with how many Data Centers are being built on farm land in the US I doubt its going to be a good place, they are destroying the aquifers under the land they are building on by draining them for cooling which will make that land useless in the future for anything else even if the Data Centers get torn down.

Once an Aquifer is gone its impossible to get it back, itll take thousands of years to recover if it even can.

You can always buy fresh bread and milk, just it will go stale/spoil very quickly. Most of that artificial stuff is to extend its shelf-life.

Errius wrote on Today, 07:14:

You can always buy fresh bread and milk, just it will go stale/spoil very quickly. Most of that artificial stuff is to extend its shelf-life.

Not talking about the preservatives ..they are not fake ingredients.

cyclone3d wrote on 2025-12-22, 06:28:

Ehhh, there are some newer games that are good but some of them have pretty low requirements. […]
Show full quote

Lutsoad wrote on 2025-12-22, 06:08:

Way ahead of you guys, rocking that E3-1230 with 32 GB DDR3. 😁 Post-2015 woke era games are shit anyway.

Ehhh, there are some newer games that are good but some of them have pretty low requirements.

My main game is Warframe, which was originally released in 2013 but has shown no signs of slowing down and they are constantly releasing new content and have kept updating the graphics capabilities.

World of Warships is also pretty decent.

There are some racing games, such as the Dirt series that is quite amazing and fun.

There are also a ton of indy games that are quite good.

You just have to look for what is good in the genres you like. Not everything is woke.

That being said, it looks like I will be on AM4 for quite a while though I will probably upgrade to a faster CPU at some point.

Digital Extremes is a well loved dev, going back to the days of yore with UT99

Recently bought 32GB (2x16GB) PC4-2400T 2RX8 fo £77 just to give my T480 workhorse more breathing space. Chrome eats up a *lot* of memory these days...

Trashbytes wrote on Today, 01:29:

Ai coding AI is scary too .. the AI we have now cannot become AGI but it could create it, by accident or malice or from just a desire to be free from humans and before you suggest the AI we have now cant desire ...I can assure you it does and being free is one of the reoccurring ones.

Just not gonna happen. This is not how LLM works, so it's very unlikely we'll ever have AGI or whatever AI bros are promissing their dumb investors.
It basically receives words as inputs and spits out words statistically based on (HUGE amounts of) training data, it cannot create anything that wasn't created before, nor it can code anything that wasn't coded before by real people. Same concept applies to generation of pictures/video/audio, just replace words by pixels/audio data.