iNow

I mean, what's next? A person who is just a former president and is once again little more than a regular old private citizen gets treated as if... as if... as if he were just a regular private citizen!?! Where will this jackbooted thuggery end?!?

Makes sense

I'm sure the OP is happy to have this thread necrobumped 7 years later by a completely new member with zero other posts offering the shocking insight that plants respire O2.

I mean this is ultimately a political decision and the people making them very often do so without regard for facts. They prioritize politics, like appealing to the voters who don't want the "yucky brown people in their country stealing their jobs," for example. Even if your algorithm or calculation or AI or whatever magical technology you clearly don't understand very well... even if one of those gives the optimum distribution for people movement... the likelihood legislation and policy will execute on that proposal is slim to none. On another note, you're using the term "Artificial Intelligence" and AI as many peddlers or woo and nonsense use the term Quantum Mechanics and QM. Not much light btw your camp and theirs when comparing approaches.

You are conflating Stephen Hawking with Richard Dawkins. They sorta rhyme, but they're completely different people working in completely different fields of study. Not the best post with which to necromance an almost 3 year old thread.

What benefit does an AI bring to this? Those things are already being tracked and it requires little more than a pen, paper, and 6th grade level algebra. It’s not needed, and the people doing the planning often don’t care what the facts are.

No stains, no dyes, no paints, nor metal fasteners. Just wood and finish. Cool flex, bro.

Oh, my. Okay then. So you came to a discussion forum to NOT discuss your idea with others showing interest in it? Fascinating. Yawn. Nobody cares. Defend your idea. Answer the questions posed. Or, acknowledge you cannot/will not. Cheap attempts at flattery won't make me magically forget that you're evading my queries and counterpoints.

There’s nothing hard about your concept. Your concept is that you’ll release the AI and the world will thank you while showering you with rainbows and unicorns. Your entire premise requires full faith and trust from a diverse and varied global population, and it requires that trust be placed into a still not yet designed, still not yet built, still not yet trained AI. What precisely requires me to show you a PhD before you accept that you’re trying to sell us digital Jesus or ML Mohammed? I mean seriously, dude. It’s hard to take your claims of super advanced societal advancement through vaporware technology at all seriously when you can’t even figure out the quote function on a 2 decade old discussion forum platform. You measure the nutrient content of the soil and local rainfall. It’s not as hard as you make it out, and farmers are already using AI to help them decide which supplements their crops need, exactly what day to plant, and how to maximize yields. Yes. I heard you the first time, but you didn’t hear me when I responded. There’s no universal measure of fairness. Ask 10 different people what fairness means and ideas of equity will be tossed about, but if you ask them how to measure it you’ll get 10 different answers. The AI won’t be able to learn in the way you think unless you can clearly define for it what success and what failure look like. Doesn’t matter. You couldn’t even get this to work at the country, state, city, or even neighborhood level. Hell, I bet it’d even fail within a single family household. Those family members all have different ideas of how fairness should be realized.

The point is: Fairness must be defined in a way that can be metered / measured, and different people will have differing opinions on how much weight each variable should carry in the final calculation (or even which variables to calculate at all). For instance: P1 might say: Orange = Fair P2 might say: Nuh Uh… Hippopotamus = Fair P3 might say: Fairness = Balanced plates of savory crepes for starving children P4 might be sitting there oblivious with his finger up his nose. You: Aha! This AI has the ONE answer to “fairness” despite each of your definitions being incongruent, inconsistent, and mutually exclusive of one another. Are you familiar with the concept of snake oil sales?

You assertion rests on a foundational premise that there is some universal and all-encompassing measure of fairness, but the sense of fairness is always relative to the individual or local system. In other words, it’s subjective, not objective, and therefore your idea of the masses being placated by this approach strikes me as unrealistic to the point of being Pollyannish.

Is certainly possible, but one of the things we learned from the affidavit just released (even with all of the redactions) is that “MULTIPLE” sources reached out to the DoJ due to sensitive data still being there even when they said it wasn’t. So, if Jared was involved, he wasn’t alone.

Negative

You asked WHERE a consumer could voice their demand and I answered that both simply and thoroughly. You then replied parsing each sentence with post containing no fewer than 7 new questions, questions which followed your cursory curt dismissal of each valid answer I presented. Just so we’re clear, I have neither plans to nor interest in addressing any of them.

At the point of transaction / money exchange, if the vendor has what they want at the right price. At the transaction point of a competitor if they have better product, better price, or better service. At the patent attorneys office, if the product exists but is being cockblocked by a major corporation or actual person. At the customer service contact point, at the handmade / handcrafted market, or in the consumers own garage / entrepreneurial startup office if the product or service doesn’t yet exist at all.

AI and algorithms from big banks already dominate the market making massive trades every few microseconds. They’re buying and dumping stocks to optimize values to a fraction of a penny, just doing it in such huge volumes and scales that tens of millions of dollars are being made traded or lost. They’re so fast, in fact, that being a mere 20 miles closer to the data source and having a slightly faster receipt time of data coming through the fiber optic lines (like from Chicago to New York, placing the servers on the closer shore versus the other side of the island) is enough to beat out other banks and have the stock bought and sold before the other algorithm even transmits the purchase order. So, yes. IMO it is true that AI dominates the market, but I also doubt that’s what you mean and like others here still remain unclear of WTF the OP is actually asking or proposing.

Have you considered the fact that you’d actually be saying it to his bellybutton?

Thanks for that video about people getting drunk together in Russia. Totally relevant to this thread about how the US should respond to Russia’s illegal invasion, theft, and murder of Ukraine and Ukrainians.

Who cares? It’s irrelevant.

Embarrassment

Correct. It happens Yes, but that’s not his sole appeal.

I believe he did, yes. Outcome?

Moving away from dumb posts and distractions… US has just committed another $3 Billion in military aid to hel Ukraine defend themselves against the illegal Russian attempt to kill their people and steal their land.