Was that the first one? That was the 1700’s with, like, the first mechanical looms, so it’s doubtful people even realised everything was changing. The whole “all manual labour will be replaced” idea seems most prominent in the mid 20th century, like with The Jetsons, which is between the second and third, if you’re using this system.

It’s worth pointing out that if AI can be an engineer, it could definitely be a manager of other AIs. Why wouldn’t the operators be replaced as well? Or even the lawyers who set up and enforce the corporate charters? Meatspace jobs seem to be safer, but “foundation models that can do physical jobs are just around the corner” is something you definitely hear. And of course at the other end Lemmy thinks AI is totally useless.

I suppose in the scenario you’ve defined, yes, being a blue collar worker is the main option, short of owning a bunch of stuff. And like any other technological revolution, eventually the upheaval will end, there will be fairly high employment, and a lot of things will be cheaper than before.

I’ve seen negative numbers show up before on here. It’s usually a federation thing, like someone joining didn’t federate properly but them leaving did.

Each of those individually is still the most common.

Maybe you’re the time traveler, watch out for butterflies. :)

It seems like “summer child” implies you yourself have experienced any of these possibilities. At the end of the day we’re both making educated guesses about the future.

You need a big, pricey, vulnerable piece of machinery to target your shells.

Are we talking about a dispersed group of guerillas, or a Le Mis street uprising kind of thing? If conflict ever happens the latter way is very debatable, but usually when someone talks about the people against the rich/elites/whatever, that’s what’s in mind.

In the guerillas case, shelling is very situational, you’re right. So is a motion-tracking drone. It’s cheap and portable, but there’s also a lot more countermeasures to it, and they’re both ultimately for area denial (or similar). In the end, a whole lot is riding on some human-level intelligence deciding who to target, particularly if you’re doing COIN, and that brings you back to piloted drones or small arms.

In the Le Mis case, the gun itself isn’t vulnerable, and you can assume every shell kills at least one person. This exact thing has happened, and I’ve never heard it described as a major expense for the government side. It goes at least as far back as Napoleon; being the one general willing to take grapeshot to protesters was his big break.

Now, your revolutionary drone operator saves you the trouble of tracking by broadcasting his location, assuming he hasn’t already been sighted on your universal surveillance cameras or been swept up by irregular purchasing habits.

The safe-er way would involve fibre or wires, either to an attritable antenna or to the drone itself. Maybe just getting TFO before a counterattack can arrive would work. It sounds like that’s frequently the situation in Ukraine, even though it seems really risky.

The surveillance networks could be bad, if the many gaps fill in. That’s not about drones though.

So when you stack up any belligerents [state vs state/non-state], the key math is who can deploy more drones from better positions with better range/targeting, better tactical intelligence and keep pressure over a longer period. A state actor will always have the advantage there.

That can be the logic of a fight with guns or muskets as well. Clearly, sometimes the ability to blend with the population beats better positioning.

There’s officers who think drones are entirely overblown, and Ukraine is the way it is because of the kind of battlefield and the exact asymmetry between the sides. Maybe they’re wrong, but the next big thing in warfare has turned out to be vapourware before.

Weapons have been banned before, but nukes are the only things that actually don’t get used.

Well, you don’t hear a lot about blinding weapons or biological agents these days.

You could have looked at the first muskets and said "definitely an advantage, but not an insane amount compared to seasoned archers and siege equipment.

That’s a great example. You know what happened after muskets fully took over? The age of absolutism gave way to the age of revolution.

Like, both drones and muskets are real, game-changing innovation, but how they effect the geopolitical equilibrium is a complicated question. I’m reminded of some of the WWI-era designers who though a more deadly weapon would mean a shorter, more humane war. In practice it meant a very different, long-standoff battlefield, and a much slower war.

To that point:

These are cheaper to create, easier to run in undetected, and do far far less collateral damage.

Shells are really cheap, like as cheap or cheaper than a drone, undetectability is valid, but actually favours the little guy, and collateral damage depends. Some shrapnel marks on one hand vs. a localised explosion on the other. You don’t want to shell a big thin-walled tank or pipe, but on a normal building the drone may actually be more destructive.

So basically, this is an interesting development and different from a shell for sure, nobody’s denying that. But, that it favours central, autocratic power does not directly follow.

Hey, weapons have been banned before. (And continuous genocide is kind of just the normal situation globally)

That being said, yes, a fully autonomous, self-supporting army would have massive, terrifying social implications. Few people are talking about it, but it has to be the biggest existential threat we’re facing over the next century or two.

This sounds like it’s just a drone that chases anything that moves wherever it’s deployed, though, not something more nefarious. Against a known, unarmed target shelling would achieve the same thing.

TBF land mines that deactivate themself after a few weeks are a thing now as well.

I guess a market killbot field wouldn’t be too much different during the conflict. It has the same indiscriminate nature for sure, though, and soft targets with no point defences like civilians will be extra vulnerable.

Yeah, let’s hope we don’t make a habit out of this. Landmines are already bad enough.

Just add it to the list of inconvenient religious prescriptions that get “interpreted” away. I’m not even talking about one religion in specific, it’s how the sociology of religious communities inevitably works.

Yeah, past experiences with a wonderproject that actually turns out to be meh may very well be part of it. Especially if it’s an older person.

Speaking of pollution, the whole “wifi/5G causes cancer” thing is still out there too, and might be conflated with a datacenter.

No, but appreciating what a big generic building does could require education.

If there was any education behind making those slopcenters, they wouldn’t make them gas powered in a desert.

Yes, they’re designed and built by illiterate cavemen. /s

Like, obviously you know engineers do that, and are educated and well compensated. It seems like you’ve drifted off to a different argument here.

The rich are also more educated. Lemmy hates AI, but other upper-middle-class types might just see a datacenter as a big box full of cool technology.

To plumbers and cashiers, it’s more of a new-fangled abomination we don’t need.

Horses get put in the same bucket, and we’ve had pigs and cows longer than them. Not eating bugs has no emotional dimension at all, but it’s also widely held in the West.

Any kind of really lean meat can cause “rabbit starvation”. Humans just can’t process too much protein.

Like you said, though, many humans are deliciously marbled, or have a fat layer you could focus on.

Also, humans tend to fight back more than we want to deal with.

Unironically it still makes perfect sense.

More because it’s beside the point. Sure, dogs are unique in that way. That’s not why they’re taboo to eat specifically in our part of the world.

Then why are horses also controversial to eat?

Let’s be real, this isn’t a thing where someone sat down and decided morally speaking what our diet should be. It’s a cultural standard, and it’s the same as Hindus being mad that in the West we specifically eat beef.

OP didn’t say “your dog” or “a pet dog”, they said “dogs”.