Its not up to them. If we completely automate hunan labour, capitalism will collapse. Its only a matter of time that people will demand collective ownership of the means of production
I keep hearing this and I think it's absolute nonsense. AI doesn't need money or the current economy. Yes, our economy would crash, but they would keep going.
AI-driven corporations could buy from one another, and countries will probably sell commodities to AI-driven corporations. But I fear they will be paid with "mirrors".
But, on the other hand, AI-driven corporations could just take whatever they want without paying at some point. And buy our obedience with food and gadgets plus magic pills to keep you healthy and not age, or some other thing. Who would risk losing that to protest. Meanwhile, AI goes on a space adventure. Earth might be kept as a zoo, a curiosity. (I took most of this from other people's ideas on the subject)
Great idea and I think they should 10x it, but... the person in charge according to the article is EIB President Nadia Calviño. She is a Spanish career politician and a socialist lawyer with background in media and broadcasting. They rarely put in charge experienced people or at least engineers. It's so sad to see the EU crumble due to a cast of career bureaucrats squeezing it to its last drop. There are so many great universities and researchers to build things.
>They rarely put in charge experienced people or at least engineers.
Because most of the time, the point of such government "investments" is to be another hidden wealth transfer from the taxpayers into the pockets of those with government connections (your Siemens, T-Systems, Capgemini, Thales, etc). That's a feature, not a bug.
Imagine Dell, Zuck, Jobs, Page and Brin back in the day, waiting for handouts form the US government to fund their companies, instead of VCs. None of their companies would exist today.
Governments are only good at funding infrastructure, education, healthcare and defense projects, you can't rely on them to build you the consumer focused private tech industry the US VC industry did. It's not something achieved through central planning, and the EU refuses to get that, so it keeps throwing money into the "maybe it'll work this time" bonfire.
Yeah! Apart from sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
So I used to buy all those publicly, slowly I started divesting from any public utilities to the extent I could. Everytime I switched from public to private, I didn't see all the bad stuff happening people seem to think would happen.
I switched sanitation to a private septic system. I bought a share of private well to avoid public water systems. I built my own roads and live in a community where all the roads are private easements so no tax money (you can drive for miles and miles without ever hitting a public road). Medicine, I made friends with a private practitioner that was educated at a private university. There are basically no police here, so I learned todefend myself. I send my kid to private school. Out of your list, the only thing I benefit from tangentially is public roads but they are way worse value than our privately funded ones (I first built mine with nothing more than a hatchet and a shovel for $0 and then later learned how to operate a backhoe).
I'm well aware I still use some public services, even if indirectly, but when I compare the costs they are all much more efficient when I have switched to private infrastucture vs trusting politicians not to squander it. My local taxes are now down to next to nothing, and when I look at what exactly I am getting for the ~30% I pay out to the state and federal the only thing I seem to be getting on ok deal on is the US navy protecting trade routes, maybe contract law courts, and nukes for mutually assured destruction.
> Imagine Steve Jobs, Larry Page and Sergey Brinn back in the day, waiting for handouts form the US government instead of VCs.
The US hands out money extremely generously through federal grants, DARPA and orders which have to be made to American companies through things like the Buy American Act. Silicon Valley itself was spurred by the DoD spendings.
>The US hands out money extremely generously through federal grants, DARPA and orders which have to be made to American companies through things like the Buy American Act.
You're ignoring my point or arguing in bad faith, since I already addressed this to the comment you're replying to.
The EU also spent a lot into defense and R&D, the difference is the US gov didn't spend money in the start-up consumer market, but they let private entrepreneurs commercialize some of the solutions that trickled down from the defense tech into the consumer sector to make money (CPUs, 3D graphics, radios, etc).
This is where the EU is deficient and you can't fill this entrepreneurial visionary void with government bureaucrats shoveling taxpayer money around to their friends.
What did DARPA have to do with Apple's success in the music and phones business? What DARPA money went into the iPod or the iPhone? They were made with commercial off the shelf chips that the likes of Nokia and Ericsson also had access to, not some super secret US DoD tech.
Just like many SV companies, Philipps, Ericsson and Nokia also were government founded from selling radars and radios to the military initially before the tech trickled to consumer. Yet Apple is now a multi trillion company(that was nearly bankrupt in the 90s) and the EU phone companies have withered away. Why is that? Is it because of "DARPA and the government"?
So does EU on Siemens, Thales, T-Systems, Capgemini, SAP, etc plus hundreds of other politically connected body shops peppered around Brussels. What's your point here, where are you going with this? That all governments have their preferred go-to monopolies for services? What's that got to do with the start-ups I was talking about?
And Amazon got off the ground from Bezos selling books online from his bedroom then pivoting to webs services, not from receiving government handouts to start a e-commerce business. These are the kind of scale-up success stories the EU lacks and can't be done thorough direct government intervention.
> Governments are only good at funding infrastructure, education, healthcare and defense projects
My point: well, the US government literally funded what became the VC landscape you seem to imply can’t be spurred by a government and still routinely fund very generously companies which then become industry behemoths.
Every new promising fields in the US is flushed with government handouts through DARPA grants, federal research grants or supplying contracts. This money then irrigates the whole fields as companies do business with each other.
It goes all the way to the VCs. Take a look at the list of the US biggest investors and see how many of them got rich through companies having the state as their biggest customer.
Heck, Siemens and Thales which you seem to despise are basically acting like dozens of American companies which are entirely funded by the DoD but on a smaller scale.
>well, the US government literally funded what became the VC landscape
I've already addressed this point here in the comment you're replying to, but it seems people like to argue in abd faith, or jump to comment without fully reading everything. Let me copy it again here: "The US government didn't give Jobs taxpayer money to design the iPod, he had to scrape it himself wherever he could and convince people that licensing music will be the future, and it paid off big time. That's the beauty of the free market that decides which products live or die, not the government."
>Every new promising fields in the US is flushed with government handouts through DARPA grants
What did DARPA have to do with Apple's success in the music and phones business? What DARPA money went into the iPod or the iPhone? They were made with commercial off the shelf chips that the likes of Nokia and Ericsson also had access to, not some super secret US DoD tech.
Just like many SV companies, Philipps, Ericsson and Nokia also were government founded from selling radars and radios to the military initially before the tech trickled to consumer. Yet Apple is now a multi trillion company(that was nearly bankrupt in the 90s) and the EU phone companies have withered away. Why is that? Is it because of "DARPA and the government"? Come one mate.
You do realise the fact that some companies can innovate without government money doesn’t in any way invalidates the claim that the US government does indeed give handouts.
I am lost on why you fixate on Apple or why you talk about some secret DoD tech. The DoD buys a ton of things which are not secret.
And yes, the amount of money the US spends on its companies is a significant driver in the US economy success in a way which is not dissimilar to China through with more steps involved or Europe for that matters which also does it but on lesser scale.
I was only arguing against your previous claims ("Silicon Valley itself was spurred by the DoD spendings") with examples that EU did the same and yet has no SV of its own, and that the success of the US tech companies comes from the private sector, not the government intervention.
This new comment adds no extra proof or value to your original claims.
the USA venture system has built the most addictive and invasive tech system yet -- ads + phones. Hot on their heels is an invasive and controlling behometh called China. None of these are clear winners, in fact it remains to be seen how long this is stable. Its not intellectually honest to claim victory for the USA based on VC practices IMO
You are using the word "socialist" as if it implied "bad". I find that to be a very unreflected point wothout further elaboration. Most of Europe is built on socialist-democracy. Wether it works "better" or "worse" than the USA way can be debated. But it is definetly not "bad" per se.
You are twisting my words. I informed correctly she has zero experience or credentials to manage this project. She was picked because she is part of the Spanish Socialist party (currently ruling) instead of being picked for being the right person for the job. I would've mentioned the equivalent if it were a politician from Macron's center-right party, for example.
Socialists milk the funds for their NGO friends, and likewise the center-right politicians divert the funds to their corporate backers. Two sides of the same coin.
The reason that the body doesn't alarm as much to Pseudouridine, is that it's not a 'natural' RNA base. Meaning that, for the most part, nature really never uses it and so we haven't evolved to look out for it. Nature uses Uridine and so immune systems have evolved to look out for random bits of RNA in the body that use it and then clean that all up.
It's like if you're looking to clean up legos in you house with a romba that only cleans up legos. And all of a sudden it finds a duplo. It's going to take a hot second to figure out what to do with the duplo. And in that time, you can sneak by and build a duplo fort. (Look, I know this analogy is bad, but it's the best I can come up with on the fly, sorry. If anyone else wnats to come up with a better one, please do!).
The Pseudouridine is used up and degraded very quickly inside the cell, minutes at the very very longest, more like microseconds. It's just part of a messenger (the 'm' in 'mRNA') to tell the cell to do things.
You might see mRNA gene editing in factory farms, but it would just be easier to do germline editing instead and skip spraying animals, plants, and fungi. Why waste the equipment, right?
As I understand it, there is nothing in nature that can create it, so the mRNA can never be accidentally replicated. It’s a safety mechanism that prevents escape.
I’m not sure of by “they just suck” you meant to imply that they’re ineffective. If that’s the case, I strongly disagree. They are not used because somehow all countries pretty much agreed they’re way TOO effective and horrific. Nobody wants it used on them, so nobody uses it on anyone else.
I cannot imagine a more effective weapon than an invisible gas that melts you alive, and there are MANY chemical and bio examples of these types of weapons.
>> They are not used because somehow all countries pretty much agreed they’re way TOO effective and horrific
That’s the story but it doesn’t hold up. Chemical weapons were used as recently as the Syrian civil war. I also think if they were really effective in modern warfare, Russia would have long ago deployed them in Ukraine.
What do you mean “if they were really effective”? We still hand out CBRN gear and train in how to put necessary parts on in seconds, because that’s often how little time you get before you’re permanently incapacitated. Mustard gas alone should prove this, and that’s an OLD chemical weapon.
Nowadays we have riot control agents that can be tailored to demographics, react more violently in the presence of sweat, or contain psychoactive ingredients. Nanoparticle dispersion bypasses common gas masks and clothing protection. Even if you’re completely geared up, they can be engineered to last on surfaces for a long time, or react only in the presence of certain triggers. Imagine thinking you’re safe until someone turns on a certain light bulb and you cook inside your protective gear because you were actually exposed 12 hours earlier in an undetectable manner.
I'd encourage you to read the article. Chemical weapons are effectively useless against a well-trained "modern system" army. Part of that is the chemical warfare equipment and vehicles, but mostly it's cover-and-concealment. If you can actually find the enemy, it's much faster and simpler to use the other vastly destructive munitions that modern militaries have.
I did, and it’s really not very convincing at all. It uses an example where a terror group in Japan was able to injure thousands of people with a chemical attack, and act as if this is… not a particularly effective outcome?
Additionally, that “if you can find them” is doing some pretty heavy lifting. The range of explosives and kinetics is hilariously low, and the actual percentage of your military with the level of mobility he seems to be referring to is infinitesimal.
This argument more correctly explains why chemical weapons aren’t a great defense against precision strike groups. It also doesn’t get into detail with concepts like dropping a bomb right in the middle of a firefight knowing it literally cannot harm your own troops, short of the physical metal accidentally falling on one of your own troops.
>I did, and it’s really not very convincing at all. It uses an example where a terror group in Japan was able to injure thousands of people with a chemical attack, and act as if this is… not a particularly effective outcome?
Yes, it isn't effective outcome in terms of meeting their objective
> It also doesn’t get into detail with concepts like dropping a bomb right in the middle of a firefight knowing it literally cannot harm your own troops
That's a video games logic, it doesn't work like that in practice. Even civil grade riot control tear gas grenade is pretty traumatic because it still explodes to disperse the gas (source : implied first hand knowledge). That and warfare is messy, which means half the time half the protective gear will be destroyed from the usual exploding and shooting happening, gas gets carried away by the wind in a random direction, etc, etc.
No, it’s science. There are about a million ways to protect your own troops if that’s actually what you want to do.
It feels like you’re arguing against the idea of chemical weapons from the 1940s, rather than nearly a century later.
You don’t need protective gear. You can create sprays, lotions, inhalants, and other countermeasures that don’t stop working the second a piece of cloth rips. Shit, You could make a biological agent that avoids a DNA marker created with an mRNA vaccine. Likely not nearly as fast, but perfectly lethal.
Modern chemical weapons and biological weapons are absolutely incomparable to their Vietnam counterparts.
The ceiling for the destruction caused by biological weapons is far greater than chemical weapons. There is no chemical weapon that can hijack the victim to make more of it.
Not under the current way we do things, I don't imagine.
So the real trick here isn't the mRNA, it's the nanobubbles. Basically, you're putting these bits of mRNA into these little fat bubbles and then injecting those into the blood. Making those bubble shelf stable is really hard, hence the issues with temperature and the covid vaccine. To then make those little fat bubbles stable-ish in the blood is also a really hard thing to do. They have to get to the right places (in this baby's case, the liver) and then degrade there, drop off the mRNA, and not mess up other tissues all that much. Like, it's not terrible to make these micelles degrade in vivo, but to have them do that and not degrade in the tubes, ... wow... that is really difficult. There's a reason that Moderna is so highly valued, and it's these bubbles.
To try to then put these in a weapon that could do this though the airways would be, like, nearly impossible. Like, as in I think the second law of thermodynamics, let alone biology, and then simple industrial countermeasure like a N95 respirator, yeah, I think all of that makes it pretty much impossible to weaponize.
(Hedging my bets here: I don't know if they had to do all that with this baby, as you can kinda go from lab to baby really fast, since it's such a special case. But for mRNA based vaccines and cancer treatments, you have to deal with the shelf stable issue)
(Also, other bio people, yes, I am trying to explain to laymen here. Please chime in and tell me how I'm wrong here)
Something that a lot of people are unaware of is that US Military is allowed to do this. I forget the exact EO, but it was signed by Clinton and is in the 12333 chain of EOs. Mostly, this is used for the Anthrax vaccine. But, it does give clearance to do other forms of medical experimentation on warfighters.
No, really, I am serious here. This is true. I may have the details a bit off, so sorry there, but they can and do preform medical experiments on people without their consent. Now, to be fair, France does this too. They do sham surgeries over there. Non-consenting human medical experimentation is quite the rabbit-hole.
So, I can kinda see in the next 10 years, certainly the next 50, a routine shot given to warfighters to help them with things like blood loss, or vitamin C production, or fast twitch muscles, or whatever. The legal framework is already there and has been for a while, it's just an efficacy issue, honestly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HGC_Global_Communications