> People coming here and extracting value from the economy to send home is also a problem.
What about the American rich extracting wealth overseas? Vacations, real estate, yachts constructed in foreign countries, investing in companies in other countries, etc.
I think you're asserting more money leaves the US economy because an average person comes to the US (legally or illegally) and sends a portion of their paycheck back home, but I'd bet American born citizens spend/send far more money out of the country...
Counter argument: Every crypto coin is, more or less, the same. Sure there's some underlying difference in how they work (proof of stake vs proof of work) but they don't do anything wildly different.
AI companies, on the other hand, ARE fairly different in the products they're offering. So while it can make sense to talk about the crypto world as a whole when on a thread about an individual coin, that makes less sense when discussing individual AI companies IMO.
I think you might be surprised at the distribution in wealth even within schools. Only an anecdote but I went to a public high school in somewhat of an inner city, and there was a stark contrast in financial well being across my classmates and myself. The kids from upper middle class families were the ones in AP classes and who went on to great universities, while the more median student likely came from a household that were much closer to the poverty line.
If performance had come with a financial bonus, I'd guess 90% of the recipients wouldn't notice any difference in their lives/outcomes. Maybe even a higher percentage than that.
I can think of one: If they can improve AI such that it doesn't cite fictional case study, poor people might get actual/better representation in court. The majority of court cases aren't particularly novel or unique (driving without a license, speeding, public intoxication etc). If we can train AI to do a better job than overworked public defenders, we might actually take a step in the right direction towards giving poor people a fighting chance in court.
I think the question is what are the tangible benefits people would actually pay for?
Social media companies have the incentive to figure out how to make more money from their product. I think the fact that none of them have really proposed any pro-tier that is adopted by a majority of users shows that most people aren't really willing to pay for anything they provide.
I think it depends on use cases and advancements in our understanding of time's effect on the DNA captured.
I.e. I could imagine that in the not too distant future, we know that DNA in air (exposed to sunlight) degrades at a certain percentage over time, and therefore could be used to determine if a person was near a given location recently. Sort of like carbon dating.
You could imagine law enforcement using this as a tool to find suspects: Drive around with a device that constantly captures air and checks it for the DNA of a suspect (which could have been found at the scene via other, more traditional methods) and then allows them to narrow down a persons location.
What about the American rich extracting wealth overseas? Vacations, real estate, yachts constructed in foreign countries, investing in companies in other countries, etc.
I think you're asserting more money leaves the US economy because an average person comes to the US (legally or illegally) and sends a portion of their paycheck back home, but I'd bet American born citizens spend/send far more money out of the country...