It was the first thing I would do as well lmao.

The question was really mundane because I thought “right, no AI global overseer, what would a ‘regular Joe AI’ do?”

Because even then there are some consequences: it’s a worker that doesn’t need anything besides electricity and water. That would absolutely kill our current economy.

Also, could you imagine if the bourgeoisie knew that some commie digital entity was out there doing what you described? They would 100% use nukes.

You made some good points. I don’t have much to add since I don’t know much about the philosophy of animal liberation, but I think the main problem is that animals cannot really free themselves. I’m pretty sure meat-eating isn’t gonna be abolished as much as it’s gonna be forced to be abolished since the planet wouldn’t handle everyone on Earth being a meat-eater bar the creation of artificial meat or something similar.

As for AI, it’s also another can of worms. Like, thought experiment: if you woke up as a digital entity tomorrow, what would you do? Do you generate labor-power? Are you entitled to wages?

AIs are weird.

Really? I thought it was known for a long while that their societies are very complex.

Within the tribe there is as yet no difference between rights and duties; the question whether participation in public affairs, in blood revenge or atonement, is a right or a duty, does not exist for the [American] Indian; it would seem to him just as absurd as the question whether it was a right or a duty to sleep, eat, or hunt. A division of the tribe or of the gens into different classes was equally impossible. And that brings us to the examination of the economic basis of these conditions.

Engels on tribes (IX. Barbarism and Civilization, Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State)

Complementing what you said.

Branco corta seres humanos ao meio, traz o fogo do inferno para a floresta pra plantar soja e ainda assim se diz civilizado.

To be clear, I agree with you. I don’t think I was clear in my comment.

That’s a fair critique of pure philosophy (like the Analytical tradition), but modern science is mostly “if the null hypothesis is rejected, then this will happen.”

The argument itself is a way to look for things in the real world and can, and should, be discarded as soon as demonstration proves it false.

Philosophers explain the world, but they need to use philosophy to change it.