I think what you're describing is setting up the human as the fall guy for the machine.

That's sometimes possible (e.g. the "Trump woman" look, or certain "I know it when I see it" stylistic cues mainly displayed by progressive women that I can't really articulate). Polarization has turned political alignment into subculture, and members of subcultures often dress certain ways (and not necessarily consciously).

Sorry, "vote with your wallet" doesn't work on technical topics that average consumers don't experience viscerally on a regular basis. The only correct solution is political action that results in legislation and regulation.

The market is not a mechanism for maximizing consumer benefit, it's a mechanism for minimally meeting it. That's why enshitification happens: it's MNCs figuring out how much they can get away with, or part of a pot-boiling exercise to allow them to get away with more.

Also the official opposition is actually not really interested in representing many discontented people. It sticks to loser issues at are alienating to many except activist base (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/16/opinion/democrats-senate-...), and seems totally fine with not being competitive in many elections. And it continues to be that way in the dire political environment you describe.

The honest truth? They're supposed to do nothing and take their licks with a smile. If that's not good enough for them, they are allowed to occupy themselves with ineffectual political activities, preferably on issues that are exhausting and do not disturb the power of the elite (e.g. abortion, transgenderism, etc.).

Huh? The jobs aren't going away because a few people can get temp work as traitors to automate away the jobs of their fellows? I suppose that's technically correct (e.g. the there-exists counterexample to a for-all statement), but it totally misses the point.

> The masses, without the right understanding, will just become a lynch mob and start burning everything in sight, as they tend to in most circumstances.

BTW, totally fine. If you like nice things and have political or economic power, it's totally on you to prevent things from getting bad enough that people want to do that. That's something libertarians would do well to remember. Propaganda only gets you so far.

> ...but at the point where there isn't enough economically useful things for everyone to do, the current system falls down.

Not necessarily. To quote the Bobs from Office Space: "He won't be receiving a paycheck anymore, so it will just work itself out naturally." No need to change, just let the plebs die out.

Maybe SV's AI leaders and other assorted trillionaires. A capitalist economy that drops any pretense of serving the needs of anyone except a tiny elite.

You're trying to make it sound ridiculous, but most people aren't pure consumers. They're laborers and consumers. Policies that hurt while wearing the consumer hat may be more than justified by the benefits while wearing the labor hat.

Details please. Because I can see the reality being most likely an attempt to avoid conflict by solidifying MAD, by trying to prevent a human from vetoing a second-strike.

The answer to question "Why did AI make them feel angry?" should have been obvious before it was asked (given what I quoted), to anyone with two brain cells and a basic amount of empathy. The other question was little more than evidence of a failure of reading comprehension.

Altman is in a prime position to influence a potentially massively disruptive technology. There have been well-publicized doubts about his character since at least around the time he was fired from OpenAI. There was recently a very reputable and thoroughly-researched article on that topic.

You don't need a conspiracy. He's a public figure and a trending topic.

FYI: The third edition was the last one by E. B. White. The fourth edition was revised by someone whose identity is unclear. For something so opinionated, I'd like to know whose opinions I'm reading.

Not that it really matters for your LLM prompt, but it's worth pointing out.

Reason says the bubbles should go on the inside:

There are gaps between the bubbles. If they're on the outside, something can impact the item in a gap and bypass the padding. If the bubbles are on the inside, they become supports for the flat side (which, IIRC, is usually heavier plastic), so if there's an impact on a gap, there's still padding because the plastic is being held away from the item and the force is transferred to the surrounding bubbles.

> Ban AI development?

The Bulterian Jihad will never be less appealing than it is today.

> The percentage of respondents ages 14 to 29 who said they felt hopeful about A.I. declined sharply since last year, down to 18 percent from 27. Young adults’ excitement about artificial intelligence dropped, too, and nearly a third of respondents indicated that the technology made them feel angry. [emphasis mine]

> ...

> In interviews, young adults cited a variety of reasons for their reservations about artificial intelligence, including the threat to entry-level jobs, the replacement of human interaction and the spread of A.I.-fueled misinformation on social media.

> Sydney Gill, 19, a freshman at Rice University in Houston, said she had been optimistic about artificial intelligence as a learning tool when she was in high school. Now, as she tries to select her college major, her outlook has become less rosy.

> “I feel like anything that I’m interested in has the potential of maybe getting replaced, even in the next few years,” she said.

A young adult can totally abstain from AI and be negatively affected by all of that. And those are the kinds of things that could make people angry at the technology.

> Why do they have to use it? Have standards gotten higher in schools such that they will be left behind if they don't? Is there peer pressure to use it? Is there some social aspect I'm unaware of?

Did you not read the article or not read it carefully? Try again, your comment shows a massive lack of understanding and little else.

I doubt most people who say things like that "dream of being the .1%". I think it's more typical they're just someone who thoughtlessly repeata propaganda memes, without considering the implications. I think that's something that software engineers are particularly prone to do, despite frequently having a self-image of being "intelligent."

That's fallacious thinking. Technological developments aren't instances of some kind of repeating phenomena; they're distinct, unique events with their own characteristics. You need to consider those characteristics instead of gesticulating at the past for a prediction of the future.

And even if you're correct, you're missing a lot. I'll explain by analogy: at the beginning of a genocide, as someone's community in the process of being murdered, you could totally say "genocides have happened before, some people will go away, others will survive." But that's cold comfort for someone who's about to be killed with their family. AI likely means economic death (or at least hardship) for a lot of people who don't have the needed combination of psychopathy, luck, and wealth to succeed in the new order.

Because it's important to put Americans in their place. They are not good, and must be reminded that others are better.