The assumption that all critics of the author are operating from equal levels of effort aside, there's an interesting error in the article: > I think who owns

The assumption that all critics of the author are operating from equal levels of effort aside, there's an interesting error in the article: > I think who owns the robots is going to be a key aspect of what the future looks like. And I don’t mean “owns” from a legalist perspective, I mean “owns” as in the hacker meaning, like “owning” the box. Who has root? This is a very bizarre point compared to the author's more cogent comment on the same topic yesterday: > GPT$$$ is surely smart enough to separate you from whatever you have, be that with targeting advertising, a scam you fall for, or lobbying your government to take it from you. . Given that any AI product that is made can be parallelized and coordinated faster than any human organisation using productivity software that already exists, either the brainpower is sufficient that we get an Accelerando-esque displacement where all power relations favouring humans vanish or the AI tech hits some kind of brainpower ceiling that makes it incapable of competing with humans and we don't even get viable robotic blue-collar replacements. There is no in-between.