bmks270 said:

---

AI is going to raise everyone's standard of living by making thing cheaper.

---

Rrrrrrrrrrrrriggggggghhhhhhhhttt. The only thing that will happen is the cost to produce will decrease while prices remain flat or increase. I think THIS scenario is more likely to crash the human race than SkyNet.

Reminds me of the old thinking I think like 50s or 60s where they thought technology would make it so that humans only had to work like four hours a day and be just as "productive". So we'd all have nicer lives.

Except technology has made us all more connected to work and expected to be way more efficient.

Obviously we aren't all working 6 days a week in factories anymore, but advancements in technology haven't exactly made life a walk in the park.

T dizl televizl said:

---

Reminds me of the old thinking I think like 50s or 60s where they thought technology would make it so that humans only had to work like four hours a day and be just as "productive". So we'd all have nicer lives.

Except technology has made us all more connected to work and expected to be way more efficient.

Obviously we aren't all working 6 days a week in factories anymore, but advancements in technology haven't exactly made life a walk in the park.

---

American life right now is an absolute cake walk compared to 99.9% of human history. The problem is it has resulted in a weak minded populace.

Yeah I mean I wouldn't argue with that, but technology hasn't made us some utopia for work life balance. We just set the bar higher for what is considered "productive". Maybe AI changes that, but my guess would be that we would all be expected to be more productive by using AI as a tool to get more done. Not necessarily just sitting at home getting to focus on what makes us happy.

ShinerAggie said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

AI is going to raise everyone's standard of living by making thing cheaper.

---

Rrrrrrrrrrrrriggggggghhhhhhhhttt. The only thing that will happen is the cost to produce will decrease while prices remain flat or increase. I think THIS scenario is more likely to crash the human race than SkyNet.

---

His scenario is in alignment with incentives and historical trends, yours is commie gobbledygook.

Yeah, your stupid out-of-reality take is the end all. You're a MORON if you believe costs are lowered in the health care industry and passed on to to consumers. YOU are the commie in this scenario....though I think you have the mental aptitude to discern that, comrade.

Tell us about those highly-touted EVs you've been pumping!! I'm SURE THEY'RE GOING great!!!

ShinerAggie said:

---

Yeah, your stupid out-of-reality take is the end all. You're a MORON if you believe costs are lowered in the health care industry and passed on to to consumers. YOU are the commie in this scenario....though I think you have the mental aptitude to discern that, comrade.

---

Commie talking points are that corporations retain all cost savings for themselves to maximize their profits rather than compete with other corporations attempting to achieve the same goal. You are the cynical commie.

ShinerAggie said:

---

Tell us about those highly-touted EVs you've been pumping!! I'm SURE THEY'RE GOING great!!!

---

Seems like it's gaining marketshare. I dunno. Kinda like what I said would happen.

AI is to our generation what generation was in the past. It takes the place of some work that previously had to be done by people. We can argue whether people are smarter or lazier or whatever, but the end result is tremendous increase in wealth. Even the poorest people in first world countries today have it made more than 99% of people who have ever lived. Most people used to have to actually produce things. Now we are almost entirely a service-based country. I'm sure plenty will disagree with my take, but I think that gets turbocharged with AI as even most of the services can be automated. Yes, that means people can turn into the fat blobs on WALL-E. Freedom inevitably means many people making poor life choices.

You're an idiot. There isn't a single position that you take that is normal, mainstream, or reasonable. It's the same reason you got you a$$ handed to you on the Tesla thread. You are so out of touch that you can't even see that YOU are the communist. Congratulations on your gig shilling for the ChiComs. Your family (if you have any) will be *proud* of you. In the meantime, GTFO of here with you communist propaganda.

Corporations pass on savings to consumers is a capitalist claim. The idea they don't is a communist claim. This is your argument on this thread.

Believing that corporations have a disproportionate amount of power that allows them to raise prices and therefore profits on a whim, because the consumer does not posses power is also a communist claim. That capitalism permits exploitation of the consumer and worker due to greed.

That is what I was refuting on the other thread. That if Ford is doing their job and they begin incurring losses, that raising prices does not "cover" those costs because raising prices, absent market opportunities arising, would actually reduce profits as a function of reduced demand, because if they were doing their job prior to those losses they would have already maximize their prices for profit. To say they can is to argue they are being inefficient or the consumer has no choice in their purchasing decision. The latter is a communist claim. That corporations possess power and consumers are exploited because of it.

Ford increased prices because supply reduced as a consequence of COVID supply disruptions, limitations on alternatives to spend money on, increased desire for private transportation to avoid public transportation and wild government awards to individuals radically increasing consumer funds. Not because they started losing money on EVs.

The fact you agree with communist criticisms of capitalism on both threads and believe I got my ass handed to me is wholly unsurprising. How much time do you spend whining on Reddit? Seems like you should consider it as you would probably enjoy it!

hph6203 said:

---

Corporations pass on savings to consumers is a capitalist claim. The idea they don't is a communist claim. This is your argument on this thread.

Believing that corporations have a disproportionate amount of power that allows them to raise prices and therefore profits on a whim, because the consumer does not posses power is also a communist claim. That capitalism permits exploitation of the consumer and worker due to greed.

That is what I was refuting on the other thread. That if Ford is doing their job and they begin incurring losses, that raising prices does not "cover" those costs because raising prices, absent market opportunities arising, would actually reduce profits as a function of reduced demand, because if they were doing their job prior to those losses they would have already maximize their prices for profit. To say they can is to argue they are being inefficient or the consumer has no choice in their purchasing decision. The latter is a communist claim. That corporations possess power and consumers are exploited because of it.

Ford increased prices because supply reduced as a consequence of COVID supply disruptions, limitations on alternatives to spend money on, increased desire for private transportation to avoid public transportation and wild government awards to individuals radically increasing consumer funds. Not because they started losing money on EVs.

The fact you agree with communist criticisms of capitalism on both threads and believe I got my ass handed to me is wholly unsurprising. How much time do you spend whining on Reddit? Seems like you should consider it as you would probably enjoy it!

---

That's not communism. Go back to sophomore civics. High school civics.

When the state takes your property and redistributes it to the worker is communism.

Better yet look for the dictionary definition. American Heritage is more than adequate.

Quote:

---

noun
[ol]

A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

The Marxist-Leninist doctrine advocating revolution to overthrow the capitalist system and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat that will eventually evolve into a perfectly egalitarian and communal society.

[/ol]

---

ShinerAggie said:

---

You're an idiot. There isn't a single position that you take that is normal, mainstream, or reasonable. It's the same reason you got you a$$ handed to you on the Tesla thread. You are so out of touch that you can't even see that YOU are the communist. Congratulations on your gig shilling for the ChiComs. Your family (if you have any) will be *proud* of you. In the meantime, GTFO of here with you communist propaganda.

---

His posts are idiotic and hence have taken idiotic leaps.

Your argument is rooted in communist criticisms of capitalism. That corporations can just decide to increase prices and exploit the consumer without negative consequences. You are granting the individuals that seek to institute socialism/communism the validity of their criticisms and it is therefore communist. Their argument during the period you complained about was that corporate greed was the root cause of price increases, rather tha government spending.

Prices increased because of restriction of supply (primarily at the dealer, rather than manufacturer level) and then as a consequence of backlog demand/government spending. It's why price increases were universal in the market, not just on trucks and cars.

If I say corporations are exploitative of both the consumer and the worker is that communist/socialist, or do I have to explicitly state that the superior system is ownership by the government or communal ownership for it to be socialist/communist talk?

hph6203 said:

---

Your argument is rooted in communist criticisms of capitalism. That corporations can just decide to increase prices and exploit the consumer without negative consequences. You are granting the individuals that seek to institute socialism/communism the validity of their criticisms and it is therefore communist. Their argument during the period you complained about was that corporate greed was the root cause of price increases, rather tha government spending.

Prices increased because of restriction of supply (primarily at the dealer, rather than manufacturer level) and then as a consequence of backlog demand/government spending. It's why price increases were universal in the market, not just on trucks and cars.

---

Corporations raise prices all the time. And yes these increase create negative consequences for both corporations and consumers. That's capitalism.

Key component is the government is not taking from one to give to another. It is that simple. And you are somehow saying that government spending causes a price increase and is somehow communism. If you had said socialism was at play you would be closer to correct.

I think the most likely scenario is, where possible, better products for the same prices as current products. That's not cheaper, but it's also not the same prices and inflating profits.

Government spending in and of itself may mot cause price increases directly, but when the government metaphorically prints money by operating at a deficit, the supply of dollars increases, and that is definitionally inflation. These days we say inflation when we mean price increases, but they are two separate but related things. The government inflates the supply of dollars and thereby allows/causes prices to rise because there are more dollars for the same amount of goods.

What I'm saying is that arguing that Ford can increase prices to offset EV losses, which are largely non-variable costs, requires you to believe that Ford can increase prices without negative consequences to demand. Believing that a corporation can increase prices without reducing demand requires that corporations are disproportionately powerful in commerce and are capable of wildly exploiting the consumer. That belief, that corporations can exploit consumers at their whim without consequence, is an argument common to communists and by validating that argument with the claim about EVs the argument itself becomes communist in nature. It is not communist to raise prices, it is communist to believe a corporation can do so without harm to itself.


Ford did not increase prices to cover EV losses. They increased prices because:
-Government money printing devalued the dollar/made funds available to consumers they would not otherwise have.
-Governments manipulated the debt markets to reduce interests rates, which made debt financing on vehicles far more affordable.
-Government lockdowns reduced supply of vehicles, which narrowed the consumer they sought to more affluent consumers until supply normalized

So you had consumers with more capacity to buy at higher prices while the availability of vehicles reduced, causing increases in prices. Not to offset EV losses, but because they could increase prices without negatively impacting demand. Reduction in sales in 2022 was a consequence of their lack of ability to produce the vehicles, not due to their lack of ability to sell them.

The robot: Do you have a charger?
The girl: NO
The robot: What about that port? pic.twitter.com/pIRnUisDwZ

— Javi Lopez ⛩️ (@javilopen) August 11, 2025

Bot falcon punch? How do we handle it?

GeorgiAg said:

---

The moment when a doctor sees AI outperform decades of experience — and knows the game is changing. Thoughts? pic.twitter.com/A2hZUPXnUs

— Moments that Matter (@_fluxfeeds) May 20, 2025

A.I. is coming for many jobs in the service economy and it will touch almost all areas. Many high paying areas will be affected. For now, it will be heralded as a "tool." But having AI, like in the video, will result in the need for fewer and fewer radiologists, maybe even virtually eliminating the position down the road. It's also all over the legal profession and lawyers I know are discussing it.

Also, the film and modeling industry are absolutely toast. And say goodbye to OnlyFans "creators."

Crazy to think about, but how do we handle this revolution?

---

My doc had the same reaction when I told him it took 3 ER visits. The 2nd & 3rd me telling them to my liver was bad.. the 3rd explaining that ChatGPT said I had hepatitis when I gave my symptoms after the doc told
Me (for the 3rd time) it was New Covid.

They relooked at the tests and I was instantly sent to ultrasound and diagnosed with Hep A.


My PC doc was like "geez… what do they need us for anymore"

Yikes. Glad you got it diagnosed finally. I had hep B when I was 16. Not fun.

It would help if docs would start giving AF. The level of... somewhere between mild disinterest and actual hostility in the medical field is disgusting. Its gotten MUCH worse since covid... Dr's AND nurses treating people like annoyances and trash.

We won't handle it until it affects everybody.
As it stands, currently it affects gig workers and white-collar liberals, so half the country won't care and will even celebrate job displacement as a result. Similarly, if this would affect mostly blue-collar workers, half the country would not care and may even similarly celebrate.

Until we get the **** over ourselves, we won't handle it.

Quote:

---

This will make healthcare cheaper which is a good thing.

---

Ha!!!!

Not until it finds its way back to a free market system.

GeorgiAg said:

---

Yikes. Glad you got it diagnosed finally. I had hep B when I was 16. Not fun.

---

Dude… I thought I had alcoholics hepatitis… I drink, not enough to get hepatitis, but I had ALL the symptoms and I haven't stuck my thing anywhere it didn't belong. My wife is the most innocent person I've ever met.. It HAD to be alcoholics Hep. He said Hep A (I was in India for a month for an adoption) and I fist pumped

To the other poster. Agree completely. Doctors on the whole are **** nowadays.

My Hep was weird. Didn't drink at 16 and still had my V card. No idea where I got it.

AggieVictor10 said:

---

We won't handle it until it affects everybody.
As it stands, currently it affects gig workers and white-collar liberals, so half the country won't care and will even celebrate job displacement as a result. Similarly, if this would affect mostly blue-collar workers, half the country would not care and may even similarly celebrate.

Until we get the **** over ourselves, we won't handle it.

---

We will never "handle it ". There is always some new invention or piece of technology that eliminates jobs. That's a huge reason as to why we continue to advance technology. The only reason people are scared of AI is because of movies, and the fact that it affects everyone.

Adapt, learn to use your new shiny tool to make you better at what you were doing, or pivot your skills into a new career.

I have some intimate knowledge when it comes to healthcare and AI because of what I do for work. It's already being used in some parts of healthcare, and it will soon be in all of it. it should make things cheaper, and hopefully make things better. Only time will tell.

The video from the OP is not a surprise at all, either. Image recognition has been done by ML and AI for a while. The military uses it to catalog satellite imagery. Cameras use it in real time. The 20 years of experience the doctor has in looking at images can be learned by a computer in fractions of a second.

Woods Ag said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

The moment when a doctor sees AI outperform decades of experience — and knows the game is changing. Thoughts? pic.twitter.com/A2hZUPXnUs

— Moments that Matter (@_fluxfeeds) May 20, 2025

A.I. is coming for many jobs in the service economy and it will touch almost all areas. Many high paying areas will be affected. For now, it will be heralded as a "tool." But having AI, like in the video, will result in the need for fewer and fewer radiologists, maybe even virtually eliminating the position down the road. It's also all over the legal profession and lawyers I know are discussing it.

Also, the film and modeling industry are absolutely toast. And say goodbye to OnlyFans "creators."

Crazy to think about, but how do we handle this revolution?

---

My doc had the same reaction when I told him it took 3 ER visits. The 2nd & 3rd me telling them to my liver was bad.. the 3rd explaining that ChatGPT said I had hepatitis when I gave my symptoms after the doc told
Me (for the 3rd time) it was New Covid.

They relooked at the tests and I was instantly sent to ultrasound and diagnosed with Hep A.


My PC doc was like "geez… what do they need us for anymore"

---

They won't.

That's why PA and NP degrees are all the rage now and being encouraged.



As far as radiology here is a recent study with mammography where the specificity was higher (lower false positives) for AI than the humans. There was a 94% chance that AI ranked the cancer patient higher than a non-cancer patient versus radiologists at 88%.

At this point, if you give me a choice of using this AI tool versus a human radiologist to analyze my image, I'm choosing AI.


Mammography Screening (July 2025)

• Tool: Lunit Insight MMG
• Finding: AI achieved higher AUC than human readers at both breast level (0.942 vs. 0.878) and lesion level (0.929 vs. 0.851). Specificity was 87.4% (AI) vs. 79.2% (humans). Matched sensitivity while reducing false positives Medscape+1Business Insider+1Medscape.
• Implication: Potential integration into screening workflows, boosting accuracy with fewer recalls.

Average Joe said:

---

AggieVictor10 said:

---

We won't handle it until it affects everybody.
As it stands, currently it affects gig workers and white-collar liberals, so half the country won't care and will even celebrate job displacement as a result. Similarly, if this would affect mostly blue-collar workers, half the country would not care and may even similarly celebrate.

Until we get the **** over ourselves, we won't handle it.

---

We will never "handle it ". There is always some new invention or piece of technology that eliminates jobs. That's a huge reason as to why we continue to advance technology. The only reason people are scared of AI is because of movies, and the fact that it affects everyone.

Adapt, learn to use your new shiny tool to make you better at what you were doing, or pivot your skills into a new career.

I have some intimate knowledge when it comes to healthcare and AI because of what I do for work. It's already being used in some parts of healthcare, and it will soon be in all of it. it should make things cheaper, and hopefully make things better. Only time will tell.

The video from the OP is not a surprise at all, either. Image recognition has been done by ML and AI for a while. The military uses it to catalog satellite imagery. Cameras use it in real time. The 20 years of experience the doctor has in looking at images can be learned by a computer in fractions of a second.

---

You're 100% correct. At a certain point, it's pragmatic to acknowledge that while there are things of us can do on an individual level to avoid displacement/replacement, many folks won't do those things and their displacement, for better or worse, we have an effect on the economy and society at large. With that in mind, it may be prudent to identify a way to handle/investigate against mass job displacement.

Not visual related but your comment made me think of it. There's a lady in the UK that can smell Parkinson's disease years before onset of symptoms. Surely some chemical "noses" and AI could replicate that. And more acutely I think some dogs have been trained to smell when a diabetic is about to have a low/high episode.

bmc13 said:

---

Not visual related but your comment made me think of it. There's a lady in the UK that can smell Parkinson's disease years before onset of symptoms. Surely some chemical "noses" and AI could replicate that. And more acutely I think some dogs have been trained to smell when a diabetic is about to have a low/high episode.

---

My previous post wasn't hypothetical. I've got a friend that purchased a FDA patent and is using AI to detect diseases years before they become visible in images.

ShinerAggie said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

AI is going to raise everyone's standard of living by making thing cheaper.

---

Rrrrrrrrrrrrriggggggghhhhhhhhttt. The only thing that will happen is the cost to produce will decrease while prices remain flat or increase. I think THIS scenario is more likely to crash the human race than SkyNet.

---

What good are low prices if no one has a job and income to buy anything.

A. G. Pennypacker said:

---

ShinerAggie said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

AI is going to raise everyone's standard of living by making thing cheaper.

---

Rrrrrrrrrrrrriggggggghhhhhhhhttt. The only thing that will happen is the cost to produce will decrease while prices remain flat or increase. I think THIS scenario is more likely to crash the human race than SkyNet.

---

What good are low prices if no one has a job and income to buy anything.

---

but, but, but...that's what universal basic income is for, right?!?!?

/sarc