Personally, I would say that if it cannot be shown to be true or false, it cannot be said to be true (or false).

Asking that about that sentence is, to my mind, a category error, like asking what sound yellow makes.

I'm reminded of the episode of Star Trek (TOS) where they make a bunch of robots explode by saying "This sentence is false". Any reasonably written software deals with exceptions very easily.

Unfortunately, the rich are the ones most capable of buying democracy, and the current set of politicians seem to very much welcome the money...

After WW2, when tax on the wealthy was far greater, sometimes 95% of their income (in the UK at least), it was the period when the largest number of ordinary people were raised from poverty to middle class status, yet the number of rich people also increased greatly. When that stopped, wages stagnated, and now we have a cost of living crisis. Connect the dots, lol...

Many people think that the market is either 100% free, or 100% controlled, but a free market that operates within defined limits that will stop the greatest excesses of the rich ruining things for everyone else is the sweet spot we should be aiming for.

As with most comments, context is quite important.

Any slim possibility that vital information was given to the AI to make the task just one of recombination, rather than coming up with anything original, is grabbed with both hands no matter how tenuous.

I can understand why, nobody likes the idea of a machine capable of doing the job of a human, and jobs requiring the mind are especially sacrosanct. But like farm workers in the early part of the C20th, not liking the incoming technology won't change the effect it will have when companies get the idea they can make more money and hire less people.

I thought it was quite funny TBH

Plainly, the precise future we get will be as unlike the films as our current situation is like Metropolis (robot girlfriends, skyscrapers, drones/flying transport) but the specifics are very much different.

We certainly do live in interesting times. Would be nice for them to get a bit less interesting IMO.

Companies will see it as a way to make more for less, they will lay off many people, not realising, as Henry Ford did, that to make money you need to pay your workers, so they can buy products.

What the end state will be is very unclear right now, could be bladerunner, could be star trek, could be 1984. Could be terminator.

We will just have to wait and see.

I think AI will take over many jobs, firstly in the arrangement of characters and words into stock text, or coding. But art, not just pictures, is something that will take longer and may never happen. Design is very similar.

Good art makes you feel something, and you need the human experience to feel that before you can make that and make other people feel that.

The problem was unsolved, it solved it when it was not possible for it to be trained on the solution, therefore your other claim that "they're always going to produce the most "average" code" does not hold up, they can come up with better code than they were trained on precisely because they can apply known techniques to write better code than existed in their training data. The book you have is out of date and does not apply to recent improvements in the field.

The unit distance problem had no known answer and no roadmap. The model identified the problem, chose its own approach, and produced the proof.

I am not convinced by either your logic or your argument from incredulity. Neither prove your position.

Thank you for the clarification opportunity

Unlike work, where your wages are theoretically matched to your output, UBI is not.

They will just generate code that passes the tests also written by the AI, ask the AI to find any bugs, and so long as the code runs without obvious issues, that will get released.