Write software for fastfood which decides the fate of millions.

Don't know who I work for or what qualities made me get the job.

Get yourself locked up in the slammer for a night while carrying a fresh burner; observe them writing down your IMEI and IMSI; see if that makes you start getting robocalls.

Come to think of it, when I get an EU SIM, it does start getting robocalls... as soon as I give the number to some Big Legitimate Business that is supposed to be observing GDPR and whatnot.

Come to think of it, from what I know about this "mass surveillance" bullshit, robocallers being an inside job makes perfect sense.

Perhaps because they have been persistently failed by other humans, but not by technology; and/or because they believe they don't have the right and/or capability to improve other humans, but may be able to improve the technology?

For complex human reasons, I am effectively deprived of healthcare, in a country where healthcare is socialized. Other services provided by the state are also gatekept by my nominal healthcare provider, making certain "normal" things, indeed things that are required of me in order to participate in society, technically impossible.

(I will not go into concrete detail, because when I request help from anyone with my situation, the "help" consists of implorations to comply with painful nonsense, combined with a random helping of rudeness and idiocy. Yes, we exist.)

If I had "open source" access to just the "knowledge, experience, and pattern matching" that is presumably still involved in medical practice besides this nebulous "talking to a human" (which the other human usually actively works to make impossible, having been fundamentally socialized into language use by means of violence - and thus, the more intelligent my interlocutor, the more quickly they begin to feel threatened by understanding what I'm talking about), I would be able to maintain my body to a better standard than the standard of care that the institutional medical establishment has kindly deigned to make available to me.

Meanwhile, I don't even have "open source" access to the designs of the motor vehicle which hauls said body around. Being a car mechanic is so much more than "knowledge, experience, and pattern matching", too - it's being a part of a web of trust and tacit collusion; a.k.a. a guild.

Come to think of it, I don't even have "open source" access to the internals of the device I'm writing this from. Though at least in the domain of computing there are valiant attempts to produce libre software and hardware.

I'm happy that "talking to a human" has helped you. In my case, requesting help has a >10% likelihood to endanger my life, >25% to imperil my health, and >50% to degrade my sanity. Rough ballpark, eh?

A fully "open source" OS, device, vehicle, body, and mind, would presumably allow me to solve my immediate problems without needing other humans to perform the inexpicably painful sacrifice of comprehending my communications. Without access to these basics, consent to "healthcare" is impossible; we just put our lives in the hands of the medical technopriesthood and hope they don't leave us with permanently crossed fingers.

You think they aren't already? You're just inoculated by your exposure to pre-AI content - hence you're not the target audience - and thus it's not delivered to you as per your point about content delivery.

But what is even the distinction between "content delivery" and "content" in this context? "The medium is the message" is a saying old enough to have great grandkids. Does the device make the human irrevocably stare at it while wondering about made up stuff? Yes. Check. Done.

What's problematic about `p(doom)` is that it assumes there was a cohesive "us" in the first place. That's a very USian way of viewing things. OTOH, my individual `p(doom)` is in a superposition of 0 and 1, and I quite like it that way. Highly recommended.

Many such cases, in fact! Which you of course don't know about. Because anti-prohibitionist narratives don't cause Number to Go Up.

What's safer: if you were to provide them with secure access to a substance that is risky only when used irresponsibly - or if they had to acquire it illegally off the street, and were to consume it in some sketchy environs away from your oversight?

On the other hand, setting boundaries meant to be crossed - such as a restriction on substance use that "they will violate anyway" - is parental betrayal, and risks bricking your child.

Also many such cases! Which you also "don't know" about. Because you prefer to consider unhappy people less-than-human, and parents are only happy to sweep their failures under the rug. Even if it means giving their child to the torturers.

From one sentence you wrote "as if it's obvious", I can see that your sense of ownership over your progeny trumps your concern for your children's safety.

A lot of resources go into subsidizing your unsustainable lifestyle, which you yourself only tolerate thanks to constantly impairing your cognition but perfectly legally.

Similarly, a lot of resources go into silencing and/or exterminating people like me; yet, last time I checked I was still kicking and spitting.

Both of these economic dynamics, ultimately, serve to perpetuate a multigenerational Ponzi scheme which treats humans as property. Notice people getting into debt younger and younger? Yeah, that.

- "Cultural differences"

- Selective and intentionally ungrammatical quoting

- "You can't" used in place of "we would like you not to"

That sure don't look like the sort of honest misconception that can be resolved by good faith argument, pardner.

For starters, the vibes.

Vibe coding, like Web3 before it (like Web 2.0 before it, like the dotcom boom before that - what preceded?) - harnesses the kind of focused attention with which gamers hook their brains into portals to virtual worlds - and directs all that bargain-basement wetware compute towards some obscured "real-world" goal instead. (See also: CADT development.)

Hyperscale these very inefficient but very dependable almost-not-efforts, and you beat the more efficient approaches. See also: evolutionary algorithms, autoresearch, price dumping; "attention is all you need", which though a legit piece of mathemagic always sounded to me like a rehash of that old adage, "all you need is love" (pejorative).

Really, "real world" is a consensus; we don't generally observe balamatoms or even balamolecules, we reason in terms of material objects' socially constructed balameanings and interrelations. Therefore, by redirecting sufficient attention to some thing labeled "unrealistic", we can remove that label; by this technique, a sufficiently large collective actor can quite literally, and quite directly, change the world. Without asking anyone, least of all me!

Knowledge consists of, roughly speaking, thoughts.

(a "justified true belief" - per https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/ - is a kind of thought)

The "thinking" part of a "thinking being" - that also consists of thoughts.

If your knowledges are someone's property, you are someone's property.

A society where all knowledge is proprietary, is a society of ubiquitous slavery.

Maybe multi-layered, maybe fractional, maybe with a smiley-face drawn on top.

Doesn't matter.

It's generally not possible to have an honest conversation about something when one side sees the other's honest response as "going absolutely insane" :-)