The big issue I feel like he underrates is the massive incentive to take control of the agency that's supposed to be doing objective assessments. These are now effectively the most powerful people in the country. Even if they start off as saints the political incentive is going to be to find ways to influence it. And once that agency is captured then you have a dictatorship in all but name.
I feel like this reflects a common problem in political theorising, of coming up with an ideal institutional structure without thinking about the incentives around it and how it need to be sustained.
Historical analogues would be how originally non partisan district drawing processes are politicised, the politicisation of science and medicine, or soviet or Chinese gdp figures. The simplest solution is always to just rig the game.
What sinister Atlanticist goals do earthquake updates serve?
It's an entirely opt in system. Nothing stopping other bots opting in as well. The only ones who wouldn't would be ones trying to pretend they're not bots
Earthquake updates, nobody cares about it. It's not controversial. Suppose there's a bot that responds to every comment with positive sentiment about ivermectin with "You are not a horse" with a link to WHO guidelines. Would Twitter call that a good bot or a bad bot?
Suppose there was a bot that responded to every suggestion that Trump called white supremacists "very fine people" with a link to a video showing he didn't. Would Twitter call that a good bot or a bad bot?
> Suppose there's a bot that responds to every comment with positive sentiment about ivermectin with "You are not a horse" with a link to WHO guidelines. Would Twitter call that a good bot or a bad bot?
It would not only be classified as a bad bot (if unsolicited), but it would violate Twitter's automation rules [0]
The cheapest way to automate something is always poor people.This applies even more so in the developing world. Where the vast majority of new construction is happening.
Though it would be interesting to see what the state of construction is like in developed countries that don't have access to a vast pool of cheap immigrant labor. Maybe New Zealand? Northern Europe?
> The cheapest way to automate something is always poor people.
The corrolary to this, if you are a tech nerd who wants to see more automation is: If you want more automation, work to reduce poverty. Support unions, high wages, and other systems that give people the freedom to say no to shitty jobs that robots could do.
Not everywhere in the US has a vast pool of cheap immigrant labor. That's a fairly localized thing.
I'm just outside of Pittsburgh and, I guess I can't say conclusively, but the vast majority of landscapers, construction workers, and other outdoor laborers appear to come from the general local population. It's not like what I hear about California / Texas where hispanic immigrants are disproportionately represented.
In most major cities the real cost is the land and paperwork to be able to build there. The actual physical materials the building is made of are mostly aesthetic
If you have bugs in an app or website people get mildly annoyed, if you have bugs in a bricklayer a building can fall down. The cost benefit calculation is very different
