I am not sure if inflation will work exactly the same in a world where AI/robots do all the work.

Inflation is driven by scarcity. More demand for a fixed/limited resource drives up the price. Historically, every good and service humans bought followed this pattern, so we didn’t even have to consider an alternative.

Already in our current economy, however, we have seen a good portion of our economy shift to things that do not have this characteristic. For example, take something like a video streaming service. The marginal cost for additional demand is small enough to be almost negligible; if everyone in the world decided they wanted a Netflix subscription, there wouldn’t suddenly be a shortage of streams or a run on episodes of The Great British Bake Off. They would have to build more datacenters, but the cost per additional user is tiny compared to almost every other traditional good that came before.

If AI and Robots start doing all work, then this would spread to more of the economy. The increase in productive capacity would severely reduce the limitations that have historically driven inflation. We obviously have to invest in building robots and AI, but once we have enough robots they would be making more of themselves and we would be limited by natural resources, but we could use robots to get more of those, too… and we could focus on clean energy, since we would have plenty of robots to do that work, too.

It’s pretext for identifying and tracking everyone. A inevitable ”byproduct” from getting your age by digital ID.

Consider all the side effects.

Now children cannot form solidarity and exit abusive situations as easily. They are not exposed to diverse viewpoints or cultures. They cannot embarrass themselves and learn online social etiquette. They cannot engage with much of the online culture at all really.

It's sinister and patronizing, born from fear and ignorance, nothing else.

Identifying and tracking everyone can't be a "byproduct" when it's already being done for years before hand, by the very businesses who are being directly prevented from accessing certain users by these new laws you're objecting to. Before Facebook the general advice was "do not post your real name on the internet ever", Facebook said basically "that doesn't work for [our advertisers?], we will ban you for anything other than your real name, or what we think real names look like": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_real-name_policy_cont...

For the last few years there have been 400-1600+ "trusted partners" on every website already tracking everyone. In the US, recent news is the FBI is buying that info from the private sector without a warrant: https://www.npr.org/2026/03/25/nx-s1-5752369/ice-surveillanc...

Back in 2016, the UK's Investigatory Powers Act (one of two reasons I moved out of the UK) requires ISPs record domain names for all user browsing nationwide and store them for a year, and will provide it without a warrant to a long list of organisations including the Welsh Ambulance Services National Health Service Trust: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016#...

If you want to end surveillance, great. That requires at a minimum banning all tracking cookies etc., and we can see from the collective reaction to GDPR (consent popups instead of not tracking people) how hard the real surveillance industry has been fighting against all that.

No, the poor stayed poor or even worse, starved to death. USSR self imploded.

Wasn't it like a surreally peaceful dissolution?

I'm puzzled to what point is tried to be made.

Is the parent statement supposed to be an argument that women are not capable, or even less likely, of providing means for, or inflicting massive destruction?

How would that follow from what is said here or in the article?

Certainly women can be destructive too. What would make it a sex issue?

> argument that women are not capable

I know this is called techbro crowd for a reason, but you know that plenty of women invented things and did scientific discoveries right? especially after they were unbanned from it

> Certainly women can be destructive too

Sure if you say so.

It's just that 0% of these destructive weapons and tech in the article was developed by women.

Maybe there's a pattern here

That depends on what "education" entails. If it's one source only chances of it being propaganda is high.

As opposed to slaves in non-western nations? May I remind that slavery was not exclusively a western thing, and that there are more slaves today than there ever was, in absolute terms, almost none in western nations.

The parent comment was making it seem like the West is some kind of beacon of virtue.

Only if you see it as that. More charitable is to see it as an example and clear case to illustrate of what might be beyond coverage of the amendment.

I see it as that because of the way it is.

Not everyone needs breakfast and still eat healthily. A longer fasting period is even an argument against it. But to each their own.

Even better in my opinion and experience, exercise during lunch break, if possible. Being drained after work can feel like too high barrier to get started exercising.

If you don't run your life others will do it for you.

Nothing in this life is a must.