Perhaps economic value can come from a more educated and skilled workforce if they're using AI for private tuition (if it can write as well as us, it can provide a bespoke syllabus, feedback etc.)

Automation over teaching sounds terrible in the long run, but I could see why learning languages and skills could improve productivity. The "issue" might be here that there's more to gain in developing nations with poor education standards, and so while capital concentrates more to the US because they own the tech, geographical differences in labour productivity reduces.

Fairness here usually refers to the inequality left over after tax, not the tax amount itself. When the US is the 127th most unequal country out of 168 measured (by the Gini Coefficient), along with still having abject poverty around, it's not overly ideological to say more distribution needs to happen.

There is no objective definition of fairness.

That’s your definition

By your definition if someone works 40 hours, after taxes they should have the same amount as someone who worked 20 hours.

That doesn’t seem fair to me

This is the kind of extreme internet Libertarianism that's dangerous in the real world. Not practical or concerned with extreme poverty through inequality, but preferring to fight on first principles, like all tax being theft (not your claim, but equatable).

I'm less concerned about the definition of fairness and more concerned about real human suffering.

> more concerned about real human suffering.

Then your priorities are misdirected. The US Govt grabbing a few extra percent of billionaires' income would not reduce human suffering in any way.

If anything, the ultra-rich have been far more effective than governments at improving impoverished human lives by setting up charities and using them to directly send money to poor regions around the world, enabling clean water and food and basic health services.

Yet the countries with the least amount of poverty (Northern Europe) have high taxes, a large welfare state and high redistribution

The US Govt, unlike any other country, has the ability to print unlimited amounts of the world's reference currency. It also has no effective cap on its annual deficit or total debt. In other words, anything that the US Govt chooses to spend money on, it already can, with little oversight and no limits. That's why collecting additional revenue from billionaires, or any other source, has no effect whatsoever on how that govt spends (or "redistributes") money. US Govt's priorities are military, social security (which actually does keep many older people out of poverty), healthcare, and paying interest on its debt. You'll need to change the core priorities (including reducing deficit & debt) before collecting more money actually goes towards the goals you're seeking.

> This is the kind of extreme internet Libertarianism that's dangerous in the real world.

Saying there is no objective definition of fairness and then calling out the unfairness in your idea is "extreme internet Libertarianism"?

No, it's just common sense.

I was referring to their rejection of the progressive tax system. I can concede there's no objective definition.

> I'd rather live in a world with 100 million humans, and computers helping to run this world.

Easy to say when you've positioned yourself as one of the 100m that gets to live - and with 7 billion people's worth of man-made resources to be shared round.

I think the journey towards it would be catastrophic under capitalism (and any transition away from capitalism could also be catastrophic, at least in the short term).

> Easy to say when you've positioned yourself as one of the 100m that gets to live

"gets to live" is not the correct way to put it. If birth rates keep going lower, everyone gets to live their life just fine.

But over the long haul, population goes down as people die of old age and younger generations are smaller.

Her message and the way she conveyed it is, for the millions that it resonated with, more important than who her mother is or her credentials (what credentials are you expecting of a teenager?)

But that's more like the problem, not an argument.

it tells me people will let you do anything to them, if only you add enough emotions, otherwise they don't care.

Setting our social media accounts to private should solve most of that. Otherwise we will have to put less of our lives on public platforms.

We're ambivalent on whether we want King Charles, but we're adamant in not wanting a President Sunak.

Strange that he's the PM then, seems undemocratic...

What is so strange about it? Nobody directly elects the UK Prime Minister. It's the Westminster System, and it's been around since the 13th century.

Don't vote for him then?

That won't actually make much of a difference in countries like the UK. The prime minister is not an elected role. In the UK there are so few parties that you'd have to either not vote or vote against your conviction to keep a party's prime minister candidate.

Technically you don't even need to be on the ballot in some countries to become the prime minister. Granted it would be weird, but ministers are appointed by the party or parties in power in parliament, so there's no rules that says that any minister needs to be elected or even on the ballots. It happens not to infrequently in parliamentary countries that ministers are pulled in from outside. Normally they'll the run in the next election, otherwise they'll have no voting power in the parliament.

I can see the argument that it's not democratic, but it avoids the issues of a presidential election as we seen in the US. In the end, the prime minister is "elected" by the candidates the people voted into the parliament, it works best if you have more than the four parties you seen in the UK.

Nobody votes for the PM directly unless they're running in your local constituency. Beyond that though, we have gone through various PMs since our last election, so nobody did vote for him.

For those that will vote for him in the upcoming election (directly or indirectly), they still do not want him to be president either.

This is the best case scenario for prediction markets I think, as it means the odds more accurately reflect the outcome likelihood (e.g. people aren't betting against their favourite in an hedge against emotions).

At least then they would break even in an efficient market. But it isn't an efficient market due to fees and opportunity cost... So you're right, it is irrational to participate.