Search Results: unique

I believe we are on the verge of an extremely dangerous totalitarian big-tech oligarchy.

By the end of this year, AI advancements are projected to be so good they will replace mid-level software engineers. Whatever can be automated will be automated.

Here are some concerns:

1. Societal value as an individual for most will likely level out or decrease, and opportunities to gain higher or unique statusus among peers will fade.
2. Many who thrive on possessing a distinguishable hard skillset will be impacted
3. Societal value as an individual will grow based upon soft skills, socioemotional skills, and roles that rely on such. Those with deficits in these may struggle to find their niche and footing among those who possess these traits.
4. Human resources may still be needed, but may be more valued collectively than individually
5. The gap will widen between the elite and everyone else, paving the way towards oligarchy
6. Negotiating power as an individual will decrease, and individual employees will be much more disposable.

AI entrepreneurs have spoken about universal income, but these are handouts that we will be reliant on, thus giving more power to the hands that feed us. Imagine if we strayed from their rules? Could this income be reduced or eliminated? Is there a likelihood we will have some social credit system?

If you thought this was bad, it gets nightmarishly WORSE! We also have nanotechnology advancements. Coupled with AI, this becomes much more dangerous. Imagine AI controlled nanobots being released into our water supply and we consume them. Could this open doors for technological terrorism? If we were to displease our rulers, could they decide to end our lives with a click of a button?

For some reason, various entities have dubbed the American public unique among the entire world and “not ready” for them. One thing they certainly share in common is the typical argument that tries to conflate the physical setting of a branch with its effectiveness: “

Postal banking does, however, face an additional, uniquely American obstacle; namely, the polarizing effect of involving the government in day-to-day life. The post office might seem like a rather benign place to put a bank in the U. K. or Australia, precisely because it’s seen as neutral. In the U. S., though, the effect is exactly the opposite.

Some think that because the government is involved, a postal bank would be unpleasant and inconvenient – “The DMV of banking.” Others would be concerned with the government putting its thumb on the scale of free competition. There are still others who worry about who would pay for it, or those who simply distrust the government for other reasons – both real and imagined.

The bottom line is: Once you change the question from, “How can banks expand service to less-profitable areas?” to, “Should the U. S. government start its own bank?” then you have taken a conversation about a smart business practice and hopelessly derailed it into one about political opinions, moral imperatives, and right versus wrong. That will be sorted out in a matter of years or decades, if ever.

In the meantime, the core concept behind either postal or agency banking – running leaner, more efficient branches through creative infrastructure and staffing arrangements – applies remarkably well to the problems facing brick-and-mortar banks today. Lower foot traffic, higher costs per transaction, and changing customer preferences can all be addressed this way; and banks in other countries have already done exactly that.