Much of society exists to solve problems, and stable families don't tend to cause problems. It's absolutely wild to me how much of modern society is entirely irrelevant to me because my life goal is to raise a family.
Yea, it's the kind of attitude which might develop in the mind of someone who was raped, and is trying to find a way to explain that there was some sort of silver lining.
Society used to get such people help, but now they apparently give them Netflix deals.
I don't even think that the School's HR sees anyone as inferiors, just that proceduralism, credentialism, and legalism allows anyone from ever having to make moral judgements or solve moral dilemmas.
Exactly this. I had to suffer under the oppressive weight of the "zero tolerance" policies in school. As a kid who got bullied a lot for being weird (got onto computers at 5 and never really socialized much), the policy which was intended to help people like me ended up making things a lot worse. Other kids resented me if teachers found out about things they did because of the punishments. At least a few times I'd get punished myself because they didn't want to even attempt to sort out what had happened for fear of making an error.
People seem to see technology as something which will liberate them from difficult decisions through automation. In actual practice though, impersonal systems can't make reasonable decisions about individual people, and the errors they make can end up being significantly greater than whatever problems they solve.
I've just given up entirely on any algorithms ever delivering content I actually want. It's either socially engineered bullshit or just completely misunderstands what my interests are, because their whole "tagging" system doesn't even remotely resemble how the human mind actually works.
This post reminds me of a novel I tried a loooong time ago titled "Woman who Rides like a Man" and basically all the dialogue (in the short bit before I dropped it) was "OMG I can't believe you do these things that men do even though you are not a man!"
It has been done well in the past, but very nearly everyone makes it absolutely horrible, where harder difficulties scale in tedium much faster than they scale in actual difficulty.
Edit: I misunderstood the question, clearly.
No. The whole problem is that it couldn't come to pass, but people tried anyways. Even with the early computers we have now the very first new generation is almost entirely ignorant of the tech that they require to maintain their lives. Trying to do too much at once is overburdening people and they're losing knowledge/skills that previous generations took for granted.
Archive link for those who have to look it up themselves, like me.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/satellite-images-words-help-trafico-022354531.html
Like I said "for whatever it's worth." It really doesn't matter a lot, but the answer is so obvious there's no point in pretending that it's arguable any other way. Your post was particularly funny because it mocked people for using video game logic while you actually used it yourself.
It has nothing to do with being "smarter" than people. AI can be programmed to project behaviours which are known to be effective at manipulating certain personality types and IQ levels, and they can do it tirelessly for as long as the Internet is functional. People who can't learn to constantly monitor and adapt their own thought patterns are going to be ass raped by AI if they expose themselves to the Internet too much.