A big issue with THAT logic is that if you are specialized in a field, such as chip design, going somewhere else may not be quite as easy or simple.

The majority of those in upper management show that empathy is not desired. These are the same people who don't understand that pushing people too hard will result in losing the best employees to other employers who do value them.

Webcrawler was big back in those early days too.

Verizon bought AOL and Yahoo, which only made things worse.

Fire exists beyond the human experience, but honestly, feeding the Perplexity to a fire would not only make the world a better place for humans, but would also entertain the fire, so it's good all the way around.

If Intel were not making CPUs, then AMD and others would be more willing to use Intel fabs to make chips or use the Intel foundry business for SOMETHING. Not every chip needs the very latest fab process as long as the fab process offered aren't too horribly far behind. Global Foundries completely screwed up, no question, but even when Intel was far ahead in fab technology, notice that the initial two generations(Zen and Zen+) on Global Foundries 14nm and 10nm was enough to get AMD back from being on the brink of going out of business.

Cooling is moving to liquid cooling from air, so now, you have liquid cooling, high power use for the actual processing, and higher electric costs due to power being less abundant.

So, they make a lot of money for themselves, but then pay very little in taxes that could be used to improve the infrastructure or help the people who no longer have jobs due to AI. Give money to the wealthy, give water, electricity, everything to the wealthy, so they can put money in the stock market and offshore accounts where no one benefits.

You make the point for why what Google is doing is wrong very well. Because you had a job that didn't allow you to work remotely, the very idea of working remote is alien to you. The very idea that you can work outside of a company office and still be productive might shock you. You must have known about people who get paid to take clients out for meals, or even for entertainment, it's a part of the job, and it's not all done in the office. So, what if you can do your entire job from outside of the office? Do you expect the sales people to show up to the office when they are traveling as a part of their job?

You are taking the attitude that people MUST come to the office because....of no real reason. If you were hired with the clear terms being that the entire job is remote, then changing that is actually a violation of the employment agreement made between employer and employee. Now, for SOME things, being in the office is needed(equipment maintenance positions for example). But for others, there is ZERO reason to require that people come into the office. If there are not enough desks, or even enough parking for the number of employees, this is grounds for a lawsuit against the company. If you now need to pay for private parking because the employer doesn't have enough parking, then the company should be required to pay for that private parking. If you get hurt while going from private parking to work because there isn't enough parking, that lawsuit may include the employer being expected to pay damages.

If the employment agreement was made prior to work from home, then sure, you can say that people MIGHT be expected to show up, but then again, if people move far from the office because people were expected to work remote all the time(not just an option), then it isn't fair or realistic to expect them to move back to a location where there is an office.

AI generated questions aren't a problem if those taking the exams actually understand the question and provide the correct answer. This goes to a basic mistake that too many people make, not understanding the difference between AI being a tool for humans, and AI being used to skip having humans be involved in the work. The people complaining the most haven't asked, "are the questions worded clearly enough for humans to be able to understand what is being asked?" That's all they need to be concerned with. This is why having humans review what AI comes up with is critical, to make sure that the AI isn't using hallucinations as the basis for what it comes up with.

I wouldn't trust what AI comes up with for ANYTHING, without doing a full review of the results, and then you have to wonder if the effort needed to review the results is more than just doing the work yourself.

There are poorly run companies, and there are companies run by people who understand how to do it. Generally, the companies run by executives who have never done anything other than being a manager are run horribly. These people with a MBA but no real experience doing non-management work don't seem to have a very good grasp on how the employees can actually be productive. It's all about theory to them, because almost all of them have no practical experience.

You sound like you are projecting your own issues to others. Calling everyone a psychopath and attacking people without using a solid argument isn't a way to get people to agree with you or even support you.

When there is no NEED to work, because everything is handled by robot, then yes, there is no need for money to buy ANYTHING. At that point, people could then do things for recreation, or to invent things that a robot couldn't do(no robot would make for a good chef to invent new culinary experiences), art, and even scientific discovery without "how do we pay for it" getting in the way.

You can't necessarily blame Trump for the level of toxicity worldwide, but things like, "let's defund the agency that inspects food to make sure they aren't tainted" will put people at risk.