mobileturdfctry

This is just a random thought on my part, but it feels like it could be an interesting and new way of thinking about AI's impact on our future.

Obviously AI will continue to get better at doing work. But what if we started leveraging AI to distribute the work.

For example, in any relatively complex situation you need coordination and a clear understanding of responsibilities and a clear understanding of the project in order to be able to distribute the work effectively. AI could be in a unique position to analyze a situation, learn from the situation, and understand (based on what it learns about the work itself and the people doing that work) how best to distribute the work in a way that keeps everyone busy but not overwhelmed, and able to break down the work to such a precise degree that you would (for example) almost never run over a budget on a software project.

Peter Thiel is allegedly behind a secretive group of wealthy MAGA donors who want America to be an Aristocracy.

The original report was Washington Post, I saw it on YouTube / MSNBC since wapo is behind a paywall.

When I contemplate the current state of the US, I can't help but ponder what's happening, and compare it to the message that tends to be embedded in a lot of futuristic sci-fi dystopian fiction.

Typically the embedded story (at least in the stories I'm familiar with) seems to be that elites leave earth or somehow isolate themselves from the rest of society and maliciously leave the rest of the planet behind. In some way the intention of those elites tends to be painted as evil for the fact that they did this to the rest of human civilization.

When I think about those stories I can't help but wonder if we're actually seeing the opposite of that unravel. Where it's the "rest of society" who are pushing "elites" (probably a better way to put it is higher socioeconomic position) to want to escape the insanity they're creating with their categorical misunderstanding of (or lack of curiosity about) "how the world works".

Hopefully I'll be given the opportunity to be an early investor in the first venture to build a space colony, even if it's only to orbit the planet, or someplace like the moon. :) I don't think I'll hesitate if the opportunity arises. Curious if anyone else wants to contribute their thoughts on this?

I've been thinking a lot about politics recently. As I'm guessing a lot of you all might be as well.

A lot of what I read online tells me that most people treat far-right (and other) extremism as an unnatural phenomenon. But the more I think about it I am starting to think it's a very natural phenomenon.

Does it strike you that what we're currently experiencing is a systematic loss of faith in humanity and its institutions? Does that just mean these people were born with, or derived these feelings from nothing? Or are they just like the rest of us who ended up "on the short end of the stick" in life?

I think what could follow from this reasoning is that extremism in a society could be used as a metric for us all, collectively, to understand whether or not we're "doing a good enough job" for our fellow citizens and humanity in general?

Did science fiction writers get that part wrong?

While pondering the current state of the world, I had a hunch, so I asked:

Are there any clues you may have come across online that would indicate that perhaps MAGA (and other far right ideologies) misunderstand the research of Charles Darwin?

I've never seen this discussed in this way. Maybe I'm just not following the right forums. :). This seems important enough (at the core even) that it probably should be included in today's political conversation.

Yes, there are several indications that far-right ideologies, including those associated with MAGA, often misunderstand or misrepresent the research of Charles Darwin. These misunderstandings typically stem from a conflation of biological evolution with social or political doctrines, often for ideological purposes. Here are some key clues and common misinterpretations:

1. "Social Darwinism" and its Misapplication:

Misunderstanding: A central misunderstanding is the concept of "Social Darwinism," which is not Darwin's theory. While the phrase "survival of the fittest" (coined by Herbert Spencer, not Darwin) is often incorrectly attributed to Darwin, it was later adopted and distorted to justify social, economic, and racial hierarchies. Social Darwinism posits that certain individuals, groups, or nations are inherently "fitter" and therefore deserve to dominate, often leading to arguments against social welfare, for unchecked capitalism, imperialism, or even eugenics.

Far-Right Connection: This misapplication resonates with some far-right narratives that emphasize individualism, competition, and a belief in inherent superiority or inferiority among different groups. While mainstream science widely discredits Social Darwinism, its underlying competitive and hierarchical ethos can align with some far-right views on societal structure and power dynamics.

Clues Online: You'll find articles and discussions online from both academic and popular sources highlighting how Social Darwinism misrepresents biological evolution and how it has been historically used to justify discriminatory policies, including those associated with extreme nationalist or supremacist ideologies.

2. Creationism and Intelligent Design:

Misunderstanding: A significant portion of the far-right, particularly those with strong evangelical or fundamentalist Christian leanings, reject the scientific theory of evolution in favor of creationism or Intelligent Design (ID). Creationism adheres to a literal interpretation of biblical creation accounts, while Intelligent Design argues that life's complexity points to an "intelligent cause" rather than undirected natural processes, often implying a divine designer.

Far-Right Connection: For these groups, accepting evolution is seen as a challenge to religious faith and traditional values. The rejection of evolution often goes hand-in-hand with a broader skepticism towards mainstream science and institutions, a common theme in some far-right rhetoric.

Clues Online: You'll see numerous websites and organizations associated with creationism and Intelligent Design (like the Discovery Institute) that actively promote arguments against evolution, often framing it as a "controversy" despite overwhelming scientific consensus. These arguments frequently appear in discussions on forums and social media popular among conservative and far-right communities.

Continued in comments:

I'd be interested to hear any thoughts on this, but the thing that brought me here was that it seems even indirectly AI is poised to have a pretty enormous impact on politics.

Specifically I'm interested in this question from the perspective of what I observe in the responses I get when I'm not concise or leave crucial details out. This in and of itself seems to be a "training ground" for people to start to truly grasp just how expansive human knowledge has become. By formulating well thought out questions you will get better answers. People will be rewarded for thinking critically about the problems they're trying to get answers to. Not that this wasn't already the case, it's just that some people just don't try. With AI it seems to fill a gap that makes critical thinking accessible to pretty much everyone. Putting it plainly, AI will respond with an answer to the question you ask. Ask better questions get better answers. As people learn / continue to become better at critical thinking, I think a natural progression is that we'll all (relatively rapidly) become better at formulating our position on issues. The "spin" games that some disreputable media thrive in today, will naturally become harder and harder to sustain.

This in and of itself (to me) is reason to be very optimistic about the future of politics in the US and around the world.

Not sure why my link directly to the YouTube video was flagged, since this is valid news from a legitimate (centrist) news source PBS NewsHour.

The rumor is apparently becoming more widespread among politicians and people who work in government. That the Trump administration is probing for ways to create the conditions for invoking the Insurrection Act. Both the left of center and right of center commentators are both in agreement that the Trump administration is trying to do everything that it can to be as unproductive as possible in the loudest most obnoxious ways.

Please look this up for yourself if curious, and search for the video titled: "Capehart and Ponnuru on the politics of Israel's attack and Iran's response"