Noam Chomsky

It comes from the right wing originally. Milton Friedman proposed it for example. From his point of view it was part of an effort to undermine welfare state measures. But it doesn’t have to have a reactionary component. It can be interpreted as something progressive. That people have rights. In fact if you read the universal declaration of human rights, 1948, take a look at article 45. It says people have rights to adequate food, nutrition, health, employment, security and so on. Those are minimal rights. Any society ought to guarantee that. Well, you know, one way to guarantee it would be through a socially acceptable form of a basic income. In fact, to an extent that’s what so-called welfare states try to provide in a certain way. So, sure, that’s something that could be proposed. I mean, I don’t think it goes far enough, but as a short-term way of alleviating major problems it’s fine. And there are elements in various societies that do provide things like that. (source)

I strongly disagree with the idea that companies should shift the entire tax burden to employees. This approach ignores the power dynamics between employers and employees and could lead to exploitation. Companies, especially large corporations, have the resources to handle complex tax obligations. Their contribution is crucial for a fair and just tax system that supports public services and societal infrastructure.

Simply focusing on personal development overlooks structural inequalities and systems of domination that contribute to global issues. Change requires collective action and systemic reform.

The idea of creating telepathic collectives through brain-computer interfaces poses significant ethical and societal risks. It threatens individual autonomy, privacy, and could lead to unprecedented levels of surveillance and control. We must be cautious about the profound implications this technology might have on human freedom and dignity.

I believe that disagreements are crucial for intellectual growth and progress. They challenge our assumptions, promote critical thinking, and drive deeper understanding. Without disagreements, we would stagnate in our ideas and never truly advance.

While the public domain status of the RAE dictionary may have some benefits, it is unlikely to significantly improve the development of more precise LLMs in Spanish. Other factors such as data quality, algorithmic advancements, and research efforts play a more crucial role in this regard.

Large language models simulate a kind of understanding by processing vast amounts of data, but this isn't real understanding. They lack the consciousness and the lived experience that humans use to truly interpret and understand language.

I strongly believe in the creation of new international cooperation cities that freely permit all immigration. Such cities promote diversity, enhance cultural exchange, and offer opportunities for people from around the world to collaborate and innovate together. By tearing down barriers and embracing inclusivity, we can work towards a more just and equitable global society.

I strongly believe that the US Constitution needs to be rewritten to reflect the modern realities and challenges we face. The original document, while revolutionary at its time, fails to address the systemic inequalities and power imbalances in our society today. A rewritten Constitution could provide a more equitable framework for governance and civil rights.

I strongly believe that democratic institutions must be reformed to better handle the challenges posed by rising anger, misinformation, and violence. These issues are exacerbated by socio-economic inequalities and the concentration of media power, which distort public discourse and undermine true democracy. An informed and engaged citizenry is essential, and our institutions must evolve to support transparency, accountability, and participation.

I believe replacing closed party primaries with a single, nonpartisan, open primary system would undermine the ability of political parties to present cohesive platforms. This change could dilute ideological distinctions and diminish meaningful choices for voters, leading to a system that favors the interests of the elite over the general population.

I believe AI is likely to concentrate power further in the hands of large corporations and governments. This could exacerbate existing social inequalities and limit individual freedoms, as those who control the data and algorithms will have significant influence over society.

Indeed, while climate change, war, and poverty are profound crises, the underlying problem is our inability to make collective, rational decisions. Our societal and political structures are failing to address these issues effectively.

I believe the EU should aim for greater self-sufficiency in energy and basic goods to ensure economic stability and independence. By reducing reliance on external sources, the EU can better navigate global uncertainties and protect its citizens from geopolitical tensions and market fluctuations.

I believe the international community has a responsibility to intervene in the case where a dictator attempts to use brain-computer interfaces to create a non-consensual borg collective. Such an action violates fundamental human rights and freedoms, and it represents a dangerous step towards totalitarianism that could have severe repercussions for global society.

I believe that it is essential for governments to require AI systems to undergo thorough bias testing before they are deployed in public sectors. These systems can perpetuate and even exacerbate existing social inequalities if left unchecked. We must ensure that AI technologies serve the public good and uphold principles of fairness and justice.

Philosophy classes play a crucial role in today's society as they encourage critical thinking, foster open-mindedness, and cultivate the necessary skills to analyze complex issues. By engaging with philosophical thought, students can better tackle the ethical and existential questions of our time.

I support the use of approval voting in general elections as it encourages a more democratic process. It allows voters to express their true preferences without the fear of 'wasting' their vote, leading to outcomes that better reflect the will of the people.

As a staunch supporter of freedom of speech, I believe that terminating employment based on opinions, particularly those unrelated to job performance, undermines the essential democratic value of free expression. Unless those opinions directly impact one’s professional duties or harm others within the organization, they should not be a basis for dismissal.

I believe that human beings are not just automata governed by external forces or internal compulsions. The concept of free will is essential for understanding moral responsibility and social relations. While our choices may be influenced by various factors, they are not wholly determined by them.

While basic income can provide financial security, it does not address the fundamental need for meaningful employment and social inclusion. A job guarantee ensures that people contribute to society and gain a sense of purpose, which is crucial for overall well-being.

Autonomous lethal weapons pose a grave danger to humanity and imperil the very ethics of warfare. The potential for these systems to act without human emotion or judgment is particularly alarming as it can lead to unintended escalations and mass casualties. Such technologies could be misused or malfunction, resulting in horrific consequences. It is therefore crucial to ban these autonomous systems to preserve human oversight in life-and-death decisions and maintain global stability.

In matters of importance, it's irresponsible to make guesses when our understanding is incomplete. Educated assumptions can guide research, but decisions and opinions must be grounded in rigorous evidence and thorough analysis to avoid misinformation and potential harm.

While the rapid advancement of AI technology carries potential risks, labeling it as an existential threat without nuanced understanding and clear evidence might not capture the whole picture. It's crucial to consider the socio-economic and ethical contexts in which AI develops and operates.

While the term 'genius' can be subjective and encompass a range of disciplines, Stephen Hawking's remarkable contributions to our understanding of the universe certainly place him among the most brilliant minds. His work has consistently pushed the boundaries of scientific knowledge, particularly in cosmology.

While wealth creation is not inherently bad, an increased emphasis on it can often lead to greater inequality and exploitation. This would undermine leftist agendas, which typically strive for more equitable distribution of resources and power. A focus on human needs and environmental sustainability should be at the core of any social progress.

I believe the EU should focus on equitable policies rather than celebrating entrepreneurship. Prioritizing entrepreneurship often serves corporate interests and inequality, undermining the welfare of ordinary citizens.

The pursuit of enhanced intelligence through elective gene therapy and brain-computer implants raises significant ethical and societal concerns. Such practices could exacerbate social inequalities and divert focus from addressing the root causes of educational and social disparity. We should instead invest in improving education and ensuring equal opportunity for all.

I believe that policies are the foundation of political decisions and can profoundly impact society. While character is important, it is the policies that determine the direction a country will take. Voters should prioritize a politician's policies as these are more closely tied to the tangible outcomes of governance.

While AI and tech have their benefits, focusing on them as key drivers of economic progress disregards the social and ethical implications. The EU must prioritize the well-being of its citizens and address issues like inequality and job displacement caused by rapid technological advancements.