> They aren't rejecting it at all. They are expressing their opinion on it which is hugely negative.

It is one and the same.

> I am certain they will be stunned when they meet the rude end of a pitchfork.

Is that a threat? Also, do you understand how the police and government work, and whose side they will take? Even if magically the government were on the side of the luddites, which they won't be, China would then take over the country hurriedly by its embrace of AI. This is why the US military is embracing AI. I don't think you or the graduates have the faintest idea of how aggressively and pervasively China is using AI.

> in taking jobs away

The people should be asking for basic assistance benefits, and the graduates should striving to automate more so that even more people can have these benefits. This is the only answer that could be fully consistent with reality. Doing repetitive dumb work is appropriate for ants, not humans. These graduates want a salary without competitively delivering value, and that's not going to happen.

▲

tom2026hn 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

China? A New York Times article reports that a Chinese court has ruled that layoffs justified by AI are illegal. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/19/business/china-ai-unemplo...

	▲	OutOfHere an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The firms will obviously then just use any excuse that doesn't contain the word AI. Money to pay salaries is not free. Regardless, at best it protects existing employees. A hiring freeze will still block new workers.

▲

heresiarch39 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

When you say China taking over do you mean economically? And how does this scenario play out?

	▲	OutOfHere an hour ago \| parent [-]
		China will be able to offer substantially better value for money for goods and services too, more than they already do. Imagine the cost efficiency of DeepSeek but for robot rentals. Those using manual labor will stand no chance.

▲

mekdoonggi 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> It is one and the same. Wrong. I have a hugely negative opinion on cars that I express often. Still, I think streets should be complete, and roads built for all modes of travel, and more restrictive laws on car use.

> Is that a threat? No. Do you feel threatened? Rest assured, you won't be the billionaire and I won't be a part of the mob, but I'm warning that is what will happen when ordinary people are pushed too far. China taking over the country would be a massive improvement, but they're going to do that by prompting, "Chat take over the US"? Unlikely.

> The people should be asking for basic assistance benefits You have resigned your agency as a free human being. We are just a bunch of humans on earth. If we all decided AI was bad enough we could ban it. The people don't want basic assistance, they want a say in the direction of their lives. At the moment, their lives are being directed by billionaires and those who saw a fancy chatbot and decided to willingly become a serf.

▲

OutOfHere 5 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

mekdoonggi 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I didn't say I wanted to ban it, just that we could. Human beings have collectively regulated all kinds of maths, ideas, and ideologies.

I am not a Luddite. I am saying that humans collectively have the power to control things for our benefit.

Thankfully I've already passed on my genome :)

▲

standardly 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

LOL what a conflation. Legitimately laughed out loud when you said "ban mathematics". Totally not a strawman at all. Typo maybe?

	▲	OutOfHere an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Not really, and your comment goes to say how poorly you have thought through your comment. AI can be created using many algorithms, all of which correspond to the use of substantial branches of mathematics. A clean delineation will never be possible. If you don't agree, propose your specific definition of AI, and I will find a way to keep counteracting your ban. And if your definition is vague, I will argue that my tech is not AI.