I don't think you understand exactly how theses machines work. The machine does not "learn", it does not extract meaning from the tokens it receives. Here is one way to look at it

Suppose you have a sequence of symbols: ¹§ŋ¹§ŋ¹§ŋ¹§ŋ And then were given a fragment of a sequence and asked to guess what you be the most likely symbol to follow it: ¹§ Think you could do it? I'm sure you would have no trouble solving this example. But could you make a machine that could reliably accomplish this task, regardless of the sequence of symbols and regardless of the fragment given? Let's imagine you did manage to create such a marvellous machine.

If given a large sequence of symbols spanning multiple books of length would you say this pattern recognition machine is able to create anything original? No... Because it is simply trying to copy it's original sequence as closely as possible.

Another question: Would this machine ever derive meaning from this symbols? No... How could it?

But what if I told you that these symbols weren't just symbols: Unbeknownst to the machine each one of this symbols actually represents a word. Behold: ChatGPT.

This is basically the general idea behind generative AI as far as I'm aware. Please correct me if I'm wrong. This is obviously oversimplified.

It's funny because I'm pretty sure you haven't lived in a communist country either. So you're arguing that lack of personal experience invalidates all arguments in favour of communism, but your lack of personal experience living in a communist country somehow doesn't invalidate your arguments against communism. Yup, perfectly consistent.

Huh, how does the action of one political party dictate what a global movement want?

Do you even know what the terms "Left" and "Right" mean in this context? (No, they are not a synonim of "Democrat" and "Republican" party of this one country)

Also since when was Biden on the left?

I'm far from an expert, but Vanguard is a kernel-level program. If a kernel-level program crashed, the whole system crashes. So yes, any kernel-level program could do the same thing CrowdStrike did, intentionally or not.

Kernel-level programs can do whatever the hell they want.

And who will create the automaton? How do we select people to maintain the automaton that will play the role of government?

That automatic government has to be created by a group of people. How do you plant to select them? The government automaton would also need to be maintained, as it is impossible for the authors of the machine to predict what humanity is going to look like 500 years from now. How do you select those?

The logic of "code is impartial, therefore code should be law" is flawed because code as to be written by someone, and that someone is not impartial.

This is capitalism. A system made to benefit those who have more capital by giving them even more capital.

No... Capitalism is when a handful of individuals own the means of production and have full authority on how they are used.

Communism is more akin to when the workers decide what to do with the means of production they operate.

You got this literally backwards.

Yeah... The label of "tankie" seems to be used to describe "anyone to the left of me".

It's so widely applied to the point of reaching meaninglessness.

Define tankie. I've seen that work be used in so many different contexts that it seems to have lost all meaning. This are word has been used to describe so many different things by people that don't know what it means that now it has lost all meaning.

So you are trying to argue that slavery is a RIGHT? This looks like and argument of guilt by association. Authoritarian is seen as bad, by giving the abolishment of slavery the label of "authoritarian" gives of the idea that you want to associate it with being bad.

If having a law that restricts one’s ability to do something is “authoritarian” then any law is authoritarian, because laws, by definition, determine what behaviour is and isn’t allowed within a society. On that note, morality determines legality, not the other way around.

Slavery means that, if you're rich enough, you should be allowed to revoke the rights of others. This is refutable at so many levels. If someone were to "willingly" agree to give up their rights, then just you're just taking advantage of someone who was born in an unfavourable position and have no other choice other than to accept (and maybe not starve) or starve.

I was about the comment a similar thing.

If having a law that restricts one's ability to do something is "authoritarian" then any law is authoritarian, because laws, by definition, determine what behaviour is and isn't allowed within a society.