I think "support the working class" doesn't have to mean "do whatever they say". We're all generally propagandized into oblivion. Like, the US working class has been concerned about immigrants and trans women in sports but it's not pro-worker to go after those things.

I have some similar feelings to AI here. The advantages of self-checkout are only present because we've made existing systems worse to the point where something not-great is now a better option.

In the 1980s, a grocery lane would have a check-out clerk and a bagger. Sometimes two baggers. You would put your items on the belt and they'd be scanned and bagged (well, so that eggs weren't crushed, freezer items were together, etc) about as fast as you took them out of the cart.

By lowering wages and reducing staff, this got worse. Now the check-out clerk is poorly-trained and probably quitting/being laid off soon and the bagger has been laid off. Mysteriously, the human-checkout line is now kind of slow and frustrating!

Having individual customers do the check-out themselves is even worse (so frequently, someone gets the machine stuck yelling about putting items in the bagging area, or just stares vacantly at the screen), but by parallelizing the process it comes out to usually slightly faster.

The companies won’t pay the 10% out of their own pocket, as they most likely couldn’t. At least here in Germany, supermarket margins are pretty thin.

This doesn't pass a quick reasoning check:

1. Self-checkout machines cost the store capital investment (they introduce some new technology, there is a larger number of devices)
2. Self-checkout machines cost the store operating budget (more devices means more parts to be serviced)
3. Stores have added significant numbers of self-checkout machines

So the stores must be getting better margins at self-checkout than at human-checkout, or they wouldn't introduce it.

The problem is that they can't just talk about climate problems they need to take action. And since the Democratic party isn't going to support mass-executions of industry executives and billionaires, they'd have to talk about incremental changes. I'm not sure how they sell something like "we forecast that these new regulations will result in a 1 degree average temperature reduction over the next 4 years" (which would be huge). And that's imagining that the party as a whole is able to agree on something hard enough to shove it past the Republicans.

I think what you're saying here is that by "it's not possible" you meant "it's not possible to hold companies liable for their chat-bots' words and still have those companies producing chat-bots." I agree. I think that would be the correct outcome.

There would be some very narrow spaces where LLMs would be usable, but mostly they would cease to pollute everything. Unrelated to AI, I'd like to see lots of regulation that blocks externalizing costs. For example, maybe it's also "impossible" for Walmart to operate in the US if they don't have all their employees getting state assistance. That would also be good. Maybe it's "impossible" to have a beef industry without massive pollution and deforestation. Also good. Et cetera.

How would that be technically impossible? Or difficult? Companies are currently liable for the actions of the human agents, and I don't think the implementation needs to be different.

Maybe you mean socially impossible? Like, the major providers have a lot of money behind them and so why would they allow themselves to be liable for anything?

Hatred Enterprise Linux being marketed to the US gov

"Why would anyone in Europe care?"

I think the point of it would be to signal to Trump that Europe is his vassal. Trump says it's sad that this guy is dead, therefore Europe is sad. Doesn't really matter who it is or what's up. You're just following the pledge of fealty.

So, I think it's good that the EU decided they're sovereign for now. This sort of thing is always an ongoing project.

To be fair: it's all the Republicans casting the deciding vote. She doesn't have any special powers that makes her vote count more than the rest. The difference is that she's occasionally not-shitty and so she gets a lot of attention as a maybe.

Like: Rick Scott also cast these deciding votes, but everyone already expected that he'd be a shit so he doesn't get any flak for it.

I think the US will be fine as long as we don't repeatedly elect some kind of cabal of pedophile authoritarians.

There's a lot of externalizing of costs going on. The trucks are idling because the drivers are operating at the slimmest possible margin under the assumption that idling doesn't cost anything.

What we actually would want to get to is that idling does have a cost (environmental, health, pleasantness of the area, etc). And that cost ought to be passed up the chain so that the various goods being shipped are more expensive.

But without a more centrally-managed economy, the implementation is to put all the pressure on the truck drivers and leave them responsible for passing that pressure to the next step up the chain. It doesn't work out very well in practice because the drivers need to make a bunch of capital expenses for something like adding a cab AC and adding a batter-powered lift, but they've been operating at low margins so they're not in a position to do it.

Though, do be careful because there are abusive same-sex relationships and sometimes it's even harder to get away because the people around you are telling you "but women can't be abusers!"