There's a long period between beginning and full, diagnosed dementia. You won't be able to tell what you're signing but you won't be protected by a dementia diagnosis either.
Shoulder pain? Sorry, but your insurance only covers suicide. Dementia? Every day you don't agree to end your life, your caretakers will take it personally.
We see this in UK prisons too, because the pay is so low, the work is dangerous and conditions are kinda shit there's now an increasing amount of hybristophiliacs (people attracted to criminals) being found within the service, who start up romantic relationships with prisoners and corrupt the service. It's harder to weed these people out when you're desperate for staff.
The solution is to pay these positions well enough to attract people who genuinely believe in the profession. But society optimises away from doing that because there's no obvious ROI outside of making running costs cheaper.
Great, and I do agree, we know who to pay more (and who less), but how do we get there democratically? Should we vote for the party that says "we support LGBT and an infinite influx of cheap labor" or the "we support the military and the free market" party?
I think its one of those ones where we don't fix it because the market conditions of democracy can never justify spending that money in terms of prisons and most families of people who need care see limited value in spending more for an experience they don't receive. Improved spending in prisons only works in nordic societies because of laws that would never pass elsewhere, mostly allowing ex-convicts to not disclose their past (with some exemptions for sensitive jobs). You need that because the ROI in spending more on prisons is rehabilitation into society (which saves you the money on re-offending), but most other societies don't accept that and the maths is long term.
So we'll get the robots instead and the cries in response to the horrors of malfunction, will not be heard because the victims are politically weak. I only hope we never do this in education.
I am noting that the current system is dystopian, and pointed out the causes for those dystopian.
I would have hoped that the implication is obvious: the system is at fault.
In the UK at least, I reject that homes are run like prisons, mainly because prisons here have much less staff and a lower standard of cleanliness. We also don't (yet) have private prisons.
"solving" adult social care is a big issue that can't be solved by staffing alone.
Not only that but a lot of the "defining games" are just games that appeared at about the same time but can be handled by much older GPUs without issues. For me graphics haven't made a real difference since Unreal Engine 4 anyway. It's all about the content these days, not the skin.
They're clearly not that optimized when the user ends up complaining publicly. Don't tell others what they're supposed to like because some algo said so. Very cringe.
Being rich is ultimately about owning and being able to defend resources. IF something like 99% of humans become irrelevant to the machine run utopia for the elites, whatever currency the poors use to pay for services among each other will be worthless to the top 1% when they simply don't need them or their services.
Would we just be splitting society in two in that case? Seeing as the poor would have nothing to give to the rich, nor the rich to the poor, wouldn’t the poor 99% just create their own new society with their own units of value?
Or the poor decide the rich have no more right to be rich than themselves and start burning and destroying rich people's stuff and anger turns to blood.
It is far easier and faster to destroy than to build and technology can only protect you so much. Unless someone manages a completely self contained enviroment and has a good enough place to hide with it they could be at risk.
That's where "being able to defend your resources" comes in, otherwise they're not rich. But yes, I'm implying that in the future the defense could be done by something like armed drones. And "defense" would mean enforcement of whatever draconian laws they cook up. When the executive branch is non-human, you can never have a mutiny. You simply don't need to do any convincing or any pretending that you're a good guy. All you need is to outproduce the humans, make more drones than they can put up resistance. And drones are cheap, even today, and would only be one piece of the equation anyway, among direct access to your bank account, real-time AI surveillance for minute missteps, crowd control weapons mounted to autonomous vehicles,... all in all pretty grim. The question is who gets to be the elite. It's not obvious that it should be the Silicon Valley guys. We'll surely have massive elite wars (fought by humans + AI), sold to us as civil/national wars and people's revolutions, before the above pans out. The partial release of the Epstein files is one cluster of the elite (around Trump) threatening another. I'd wager that a lot of dirt will see the light of day in the next ten years and underneath it will be the fight over who gets to command the new kingmaker tech.
I think it would be too depressing to have all these ghost towns and stuff - how would you explain that to your kids? That they're robot towns? Unaliving 50-80% under tragic circumstances like plagues and wars on the other hand...
And as an aside, the naturally rebalancing effect after the black death which killed 1/3 of Europe was that workers were suddenly in higher demand and could negotiate much improved workers' rights, ending serfdom. Such an effect won't be possible when there's something replacing the workers...
