Almost definitionally it would. If society is saving a bunch of money on all that saved labor, that extra value is still there, it just needs to be appropriately redistributed

The same way that society has already benefited and continues to benefit from everything.

Wealth across all income brackets continues to go up.

> That’s what is what makes me uncomfortable.

Then you are uncomfortable about something that isn't happening.

You aren't being forced to do anything that you didn't agree to. You aren't the apartment owner, you instead just signed the contract and have to follow the apartment rules.

I don't see why you get to complain about what someone else is doing with their own property. Its their property. What laws apply to them are none of your business as you simply signed the contract.

And you, of your own free choice, would have the choice to either follow the rules or go live somewhere else. The person you are responding to doesn't have an issue with you smoking in your own purchased home. Instead this was about apartment complexes.

And it wouldn't even have to be a law applied to you. It could be applied to the apartment complex. Apartment complexes already have to follow lots of laws. So they could simply be required to have this as a rule.

And then you, could make your libertarian choice to live there or not. Its not your apartment complex after all. And since its someone else property, they would absolutely have the free to make you not do this in their own property.

> What happens when more and more people can't afford housing, kids, food, health insurance, etc.?

What about when the opposite of this all happens, society massively benefits, and unemployment rates stay about what they have always been?

Will people still be yelling about the doomsday of societial collapse that has failed to materialize every single time?

"but EFF has changed from neutral rights-focused activism into questionable political activism. "

This is saying that they strayed from their original mission. They were focused on a narrow set of beliefs before, and then it changed to focusing on unrelated and more partisan politics.

And yes this was pretty easy to understand.

Not really, they were getting discounted oil prices previously that they are no longer able to get.

Also, they are a large importer of oil compared to the US, which is an exporter. They have much more to lose from high oil prices than we do.

Just look at whats happening now. Iran is shooting missiles at all sorts of countries all over the place. (not just the US or israel). Its clearly in a war with a lot of groups right now. It is a silly handwave to pretend like a war isn't going on now, because of something that happened 50 years ago.

Its clearly not unilateral, given how many other countries, that are not the US, have had missiles shot at them by Iran.

As a similar example Russia invaded Ukraine. There is a war going on between them and Ukraine. And when there is a war, countries attack each other. "Who started it" doesn't change the fact that a war is happening.

Its libertarian because it is fundamentally about individuals acting on their own without going through the government, ect. It is an individualistic framework. Individuals going about achieving their goals, even through powerful corporations, falls squarely within what libertarians support.

Yes, you can make some philosophical point about how if corporations are powerful enough, how is that in any way different from governments.

But, powerful corporations controlling society, in some sort of fallout style or bioshock style dystopia clearly describes a libertarian dystopia, not a left leaning or even fascist dystopia.

And his politics are a derivative of Great Man Theory, and his positions on things like democracy follow from that. This idea, and those espoused by some of the VC/tech elite like Peter Theil are that singular hardworking genius individuals can change the world on their own, and everyone who not in this top 0.1% are borderline NPCs.

They do this both because of their genius/hardwork, and also because they are willing to break the rules that are set forth by this bottom 99.9%.

I'm starting to call this ideology Authoritarian techno-Libertarianism. Its a delibriately oxymoronic name that I use, because these "Great Men" are definitely trying to change the world. IE, they are trying to impose their goals and values on the world without getting the buyin of other people.

Thats the "authoritarian" part. And then the "libertarian" part is that they are going about this imposition of their will on the world by doing it all themselves, through their own hard work.

Think "Person invents a world changing technology, that some people thing is bad, and just releases it open source for anyone to use". AI models are a great example, in fact. Once that technology is out there the genie cannot be put back into the bottle and a ton of people are going to lose their jobs, ect.

A distain for democracy follows directly from things like this. You dont wait for people to vote to allow you to change the world by inventing something new. You just do and watch the results.

True. This is a fair point. But the expected counter argument would be that the exact line isn't the issue instead it's the justification for the principle.

IE why is personalized algorithms more dangerous than general ones.

My answer (because I mostly agree with you) is that the difference is that personalized algorithms almost feel like brain hacking. And this brain hacking simply doesn't work at scale when applied to vague general algorithms.

Ok! But they do have to follow a bunch of extra laws that cost them a ton of money and/or users.

Therefore the same can apply to social media algorithm companies.

The one extreme example, is just like cigarettes, there could be 18+ age verification for social media. There a big deal.

This isn't even going into how all of our geopolitical enemies have lost in the relevant wars.

Who's even left at this point? I guess China kind of, but they have always been a saber rattler and not a doer, as they let their "allies" like Iran fall apart.

They always try with proxies not direct action, and now every proxy has collapsed.

The really funny part is that I only started hearing about this collapsing empire narrative after every.ije of our enemies has been bombed to smitherines.

My guess is that it's a desperate cope, to avoid having to deal with the on the ground reality of all the bombed out ruins of the groups that oppose the US.

I am not sure about you, but I do not know a single developer who isn't using LLMs with a passion, even if its only just cursor and auto-complete.

So, quite the opposite. Instead, literally all games are being made with AI now. I expect the same thing applies to the other professions that you brought up, if not now then soon.