Perhaps economic value can come from a more educated and skilled workforce if they're using AI for private tuition (if it can write as well as us, it can provide a bespoke syllabus, feedback etc.)
Automation over teaching sounds terrible in the long run, but I could see why learning languages and skills could improve productivity. The "issue" might be here that there's more to gain in developing nations with poor education standards, and so while capital concentrates more to the US because they own the tech, geographical differences in labour productivity reduces.
This is the kind of extreme internet Libertarianism that's dangerous in the real world. Not practical or concerned with extreme poverty through inequality, but preferring to fight on first principles, like all tax being theft (not your claim, but equatable).
I'm less concerned about the definition of fairness and more concerned about real human suffering.
Fairness here usually refers to the inequality left over after tax, not the tax amount itself. When the US is the 127th most unequal country out of 168 measured (by the Gini Coefficient), along with still having abject poverty around, it's not overly ideological to say more distribution needs to happen.
> I'd rather live in a world with 100 million humans, and computers helping to run this world.
Easy to say when you've positioned yourself as one of the 100m that gets to live - and with 7 billion people's worth of man-made resources to be shared round.
I think the journey towards it would be catastrophic under capitalism (and any transition away from capitalism could also be catastrophic, at least in the short term).
Her message and the way she conveyed it is, for the millions that it resonated with, more important than who her mother is or her credentials (what credentials are you expecting of a teenager?)
Nobody votes for the PM directly unless they're running in your local constituency. Beyond that though, we have gone through various PMs since our last election, so nobody did vote for him.
For those that will vote for him in the upcoming election (directly or indirectly), they still do not want him to be president either.
This is the best case scenario for prediction markets I think, as it means the odds more accurately reflect the outcome likelihood (e.g. people aren't betting against their favourite in an hedge against emotions).
At least then they would break even in an efficient market. But it isn't an efficient market due to fees and opportunity cost... So you're right, it is irrational to participate.
Automation over teaching sounds terrible in the long run, but I could see why learning languages and skills could improve productivity. The "issue" might be here that there's more to gain in developing nations with poor education standards, and so while capital concentrates more to the US because they own the tech, geographical differences in labour productivity reduces.