The invention of the Internet didn't come with realistic deepfakes, now we are in a post-truth society.

If UBI isn't implemented, I expect there will be riots all around the world, rightfully so.

this is about utilization so its basically about how much folks are accepting it in usage rather than just words.

Then you're in a bubble. One of the most frustrating things about the right currently is they have a large network that is very good at sharing information. They have a much tighter grip of current events than anyone I've seen on the left. The left are miles behind on any current events. Whenever something is happening, I've been heading over to right wing spaces because as much as I hate it, they tend to know things much faster and in more detail then the left wing spaces.

Just look at Lemmy here. Most information is a post and then 100 comments of talking about how upset we all are and gob smacked. But there is no further insight.

When I go to right wing spaces, it is similar but i do get extra information like background details about who individuals were or what led to an event that isn't in an article. It comes with tons of bullshit but I trust I know ways to verify information enough to spot the bullshit.

Ah yes 1998, the last year before Matrix.

I think there is no possible world where people are without meaningful work and are happy about it. Even if they collected $10,000 a month and got to spend all of their time doing hobbies and spending time with family, it would feel pointless and hollow. Why have a family? Why raise children? Why do anything if there's no struggle, if you're not the one providing for your kids? I think if AI replaces humans in the workplace, even with UBI, humans would cease to exist shortly thereafter as our lives will have become meaningless

You serious?

Yes, I think people define themselves by their roles, especially men

That's a sign of toxic culture, not of men wanting to be defined by what value they can bring.

I think there is no possible world where people are without meaningful work and are happy about it.

-->

Even if they collected $10,000 a month and got to spend all of their time doing hobbies and spending time with family, it would feel pointless and hollow.

What is the difference between "hobby" and "work" if not what random people decide what is better monetised?

Both is labour & value added.

In a world where everyone gets enough money people could do what they actually want. So a CEO wouldn't be "stuck" being a CEO if they don't like that job & would rather be eg a baker. In the current system bcs of a huge pay divergence you get an unhappy CEO (who ofc won't quit) and an unhappy baker that just couldn't get a more suited paying job.

But we as a society would get a lot more out of life & cultural progression if people would be happy & satisfied at what they do (job=hobby).

Empirical evidence (even USA did extensive tests in the 60s) show that given a universal income (so basically no scarcity) basically nobody just sits around watching TV all day, everyone is productive (research, art, services, etc).

Imagine only having customer support or food industry workers that truly enjoy their job & want to do it.

How many prodigies are stuck at random dead end jobs with no prospects and life options?

Labour is what we all benefit from.

Work is what the employer/owner benefits from.

Even if so - the definition of oneself is what that person gets paid for, not what that person enjoys doing (or even is just good at)?

(Especially with jobs, folk on LinkedIn will describe their job as anything but their actual everyday job, or lie/exaggerate about their job when with other people - so not even that "role" is true.)

... like, lmao, except if it's like a weird grinding kink or something.

*monetary value

(in relation to toxic culture)

(bcs value that people actuality bring to society often isn't fairly valued in terms of money or even not at all)

You have a very limited view of what life should, or even can be.

Nothing like comparing a technology that took more than 10 years to get "released in the wild" and had several "killer apps" built using it very early on (email, instant messaging, web pages, online games) and many companies had no idea how to get money with it, vs. a "content generator" that is run almost entirely on promises of increased productivity and profit.

No it's biology

It's not a normative statement. I don't necessarily think it's good. I just don't think people can be happy being useless

Huh I thought matrix was pretty new, and people used irc back then.

Also the AI could automate away that man's hobby...

You said people yearn for "the workplace"

No I didn't

The two aren't equivalent. One of them is an actual proven technology that definitively exists, the other one is still to prove itself.