| Favorite team: | Arizona  |
| Location: | Porte du Lafitte |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 180727 |
| Registered on: | 9/30/2006 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
quote:
He never said the FCC itself blocked him.
Then James Talarico is a liar because he seems to be under the impression the FCC told Colbert he couldn't air it
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
1
re: Colbert didn’t want to have Jasmine Crockett on, so he lied that Trump used FCC
Posted by stout on 2/17/26 at 7:40 pm to terd ferguson
One is an articulate white dude
The other makes AOC look like a MENSA member and speaks broken ebonics
The other makes AOC look like a MENSA member and speaks broken ebonics
The same people who ran Kamala's social media
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. I can't blame him. I wouldn't want that her on my show either
Colbert didn’t want to have Jasmine Crockett on, so he lied that Trump used FCC
Posted by stout on 2/17/26 at 7:33 pm
quote:
CBS just called out their OWN HOST, Stephen Colbert, and Dem. Senate candidate James Talarico for LYING by claiming Trump’s FCC BLOCKED their interview from airing on TV
In a statement, CBS said Colbert “was NOT prohibited from broadcasting the interview with Rep. James Talarico. The show was provided legal guidance that the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal-time rule for two other candidates, including Rep. Jasmine Crockett, and presented options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled.”
So Colbert didn’t want to have Jasmine Crockett on, so he made up an excuse saying the FCC barred his interview.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.quote:
You've become quite the little socialist.
It's amazing how some people here can't have an open discussion and simply resort to name-calling with no basis for it. You sound like a retarded liberal when you do that BS.
I have never once even ventured near anything worthy of me being called a socialist. In fact, I would say my post history is very clearly contradictory to anything socialist leaning.
Having a discussion that AI is a disruptor that could greatly change societal needs isn't partisan at all.
quote:
I should note - I don't see this as a likely outcome. Just a plausible one. I'd say maybe 5% chance of happening in our lifetimes
100 years in the future - probably more like a 50% chance. If we aren't extinct.
Yea I agree, but I do like the idea of trade and barter and think more people should do it anyway.
re: Are Dems ahead of the curve on corporate taxes as UBI becomes necessary due to AI?
Posted by stout on 2/17/26 at 10:13 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
This could have been said about every time period since… the invention of the wheel.
So you don't believe in the law of accelerating returns?
quote:
I think there will definitely be a limit to what text-based LLMs can accomplish.
I think you are wrong, and the only limit will be the constraints we institute.
quote:
We may see in our lifetimes the end of the concept of currency entirely
It would be wild if the trade and barter systems made a huge comeback due to AI and the fall of currency.
re: Are Dems ahead of the curve on corporate taxes as UBI becomes necessary due to AI?
Posted by stout on 2/17/26 at 10:04 am to DarthRebel
quote:
Capitalism has a way of balancing itself out
Yes, and the closest example we have is the industrial revolution, as I mentioned.
It’s not a perfect comparison, obviously, but it’s the best one we have. If we base our expectations on it at all, there’s a real concern about how fast we can adapt. After the industrial revolution, it took decades for society to adjust and for new jobs and entire industries to appear.
Now compare that to AI, which is moving far faster than anything back then. If adaptation took that long when change was slower, it’s reasonable to worry whether society can keep up this time around.
quote:
I can understand why you would think that but I don't believe that is his profession
I thought he was. I could be wrong on that but my point still stands
re: Are Dems ahead of the curve on corporate taxes as UBI becomes necessary due to AI?
Posted by stout on 2/17/26 at 9:58 am to dickkellog
quote:
you know what AI can't do? it can't demo my two upstairs bath rooms two mexican's did that and one of them spoke the best english i've ever a mexican speak, wish my mexican maids spoke english that well.
You might not realize it, but even this is an example of things getting cheaper due to AI. As more people turn to trade jobs, because those are jobs AI can't replace, you will see more and more competitive pricing from those trades.
re: Are Dems ahead of the curve on corporate taxes as UBI becomes necessary due to AI?
Posted by stout on 2/17/26 at 9:56 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
So we need universal handouts (from whom?)
Corporations will still make goods, and the goods will be cheaper to mass-produce and distribute. It will lower the amount of UBI needed, but there will still be a need.
Again, this is all speculative and just a discussion, but it seems logical.
You're a tax attorney or accountant or something from what I gather. Accounting will be one of the very first industries AI wipes out. What happens to people in your field then?
quote:
The people pushing this canard are the same folks trying to sell you on how awesome AI will be.
AI is going to be pretty awesome and it already is in a lot of areas. The compounding nature of the technology is unfathomable, so I understand why you think otherwise.
The real question is can we adapt to keep people working and how fast.
re: Are Dems ahead of the curve on corporate taxes as UBI becomes necessary due to AI?
Posted by stout on 2/17/26 at 9:51 am to dickkellog
quote:
here's the thing milt, my basic universal income is going to need to be between 40 to 70k a month to keep me flush.
Another talking point is that 401Ks wont even matter in the near future.
re: Are Dems ahead of the curve on corporate taxes as UBI becomes necessary due to AI?
Posted by stout on 2/17/26 at 9:49 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
and create wealth because of AI
It's not so much that AI will create wealth, although you could argue it already has. It's moreso that AI will make goods very cheap, very quickly, but at the same time eliminate large swaths of the workforce at a pace that we can't adapt to so how do we keep those people from starving?
Population reduction is another answer but that is a WEF talking point that I would like to think isn't even a possibility.
re: Are Dems ahead of the curve on corporate taxes as UBI becomes necessary due to AI?
Posted by stout on 2/17/26 at 9:45 am to theballguy
quote:
has now become full 1 hundo communists
How is it communistic to speak of something that is a real possibility and concern?
It's not going to be a pleasant path for anyone moving forward. Goods will become cheaper as AI advances, much like they did due to the IR. How long will that take is unkown so how do we keep people from starving while society shifts?
Again, the IR shift took decades to find new industries and jobs and the implementation of factories was far slower than the potential compounding nature of AI.
re: Are Dems ahead of the curve on corporate taxes as UBI becomes necessary due to AI?
Posted by stout on 2/17/26 at 9:41 am to TheHarahanian
quote:
I know that they’d like to implement UBI before it’s proven to be necessary.
That has nothing to do with this topic, though.
This isn't a partisan issue and will soon be a real concern.
re: Are Dems ahead of the curve on corporate taxes as UBI becomes necessary due to AI?
Posted by stout on 2/17/26 at 9:39 am to RolltidePA
quote:
Everything is a tradeoff, my significant concern with something like UBI is; what will people actively to generate value to society while receiving UBI? If that is a solution that end up being chased, it can't become just another form of welfare.
Elon says that ultimately, money won't even matter because goods will basically be free. Again, it's all speculative, and no one knows at which point this will be a reality, if ever.
If that is true, though, then people will not need to create any value.
My concern at that point is what does it do mentally to an idle society when man is not meant to be idle, but that's a whole other topic.
re: Are Dems ahead of the curve on corporate taxes as UBI becomes necessary due to AI?
Posted by stout on 2/17/26 at 9:36 am to RemouladeSawce
quote:
The more direct lever is just to ban corporate use of AI. The platform of any government that gets elected by enough people to get the UBI ball rolling is going to also include axing AI entirely
Do that, and we instantly lose to China
AI has a real chance to advance society well beyond anything we can currently comprehend. People are saying that if you are under 60 right now, you can expect to potentially live to 120 due to upcoming AI advancements we could never make as humans.
That is all speculative, but the concern becomes stagnate socierty in the name of protecting jobs or figuring out a way to tax the output and advance society. The latter calls for UBI as a necessity, but in the long run, society advances infinitely in due time.
Popular
20
