UraniumBlazer

Hm, makes sense ig. Basically, what u'r saying is this from what I understood - AI romance/sex bots capable of making a significant drop in birth rates would come before AI bots that bring in labor post scarcity.

While I agree with this, I don't think that the time difference between the two events would be significant enough for the drop in birth rate to be that damaging. Why? Because I'm assuming that development in AI would be that fast. I can't think of many reasons as to why tech that makes it possible to serve as a good enough romantic partner (which is quite a complex task) can't serve as a mental health therapist (with different fine tuning of course), customer service, retail, admin, secretary, etc.

One doesn't need to replace 100% of jobs to cause unemployment related issues in the market. I think the effects of unemployment would be seen first before the effects of potentially dropping birth rates.

Same. Very likely geoblocked

Your conclusion is based upon an assumption that we need more humans to progress as society. If AI develops to the point where it is better as a partner than a human being, it likely means that we have achieved, or are very close to achieving labor post scarcity (the assumption being that an AI capable of achieving this is capable enough to do most/all human work).

When we achieve labor post scarcity, the number of humans has nothing to do with progress. Therefore, falling birthrates won't have any negative effect on progress.

When we achieve labor post scarcity in the medical field, life expectancy would increase, with us achieving biological immortality at a certain point. This means, that death rates also go down.

Considering the above, I thought you were referring to "dating and fucking AI partners" as the end of human progress (presumably because of a lack of any motivation to cause any more development). That's what my reply was talking about.

Spending all time dating AI partners means that we have achieved labor post scarcity. If labor post scarcity isn't achieved, then it means you have to do a job to survive (like now), thus not spending entire time with AI partners.

Achieving labor post scarcity means that scientific progress too would stop being connected with the economic productivity of individuals. Basically, AI scientists. Scientific progress means expansion of humanity through space.

Therefore, your great filter idea doesn't really hold imo.

More like a loser, but yeah

I know it's going to be a really bad 4 years for everyone (Americans and Canadians both in this context), but I'm really excited to see the "leopards eating my face" content that'll be coming up.

Ik ik it's wrong as innocent people will suffer a lot, but still... I'm really excited to see what the fascists have to say when inflation goes through the roof due to their beloved Fuhrer's new sales taxes.

Someone loves sucking on micro soft dicks (joking, wanted to make the micro soft joke)

So much operating that it takes TWENTY ONE AND HALF FUCKING MINUTES TO SHUT DOWN

Awwwww so cuteeee

Naah I like the wide spaces on the left and right. It looks too cluttered otherwise with unnecessary information

Funny comic.

On a serious note though - AI is advanced means of production. All of it might not be 100% production ready today, but it's getting there soon. Our goal must be to seize this means of production (make AI companies publicly owned with a consumer cooperative operational model). Denying its existence only serves the interests of the bourgeoisie, as it makes us unprepared when it actually starts replacing jobs en masse.

Serious question. What's causing this massive uptick of cat posts? My entire feed is just cats right now