zlacker

> Now, because we had the freedom to innovate, AI will be bringing new, high paying jobs to our factories in our state.

Do we really have to play this game?

If what you’re arguing for is not going to specifically advantage your state over others, and the thing you’re arguing against isn’t going to create an advantage for other states over yours, why make this about ‘your state’ in the first place?

The point of elected representatives is to represent the views of their constituents, not to obtain special advantages for their constituents.

>>jamesh+(OP)
> The point of elected representatives is to represent the views of their constituents, not to obtain special advantages for their constituents.

That is painfully naive, a history of pork projects speaks otherwise.

>>jamesh+(OP)
What I was thinking in my head (although I don't think I articulated this well) is that I hope that smaller businesses who build their own AIs will be able to create some jobs, even if AI as a whole will negatively impact employment (and I think that's going to happen even if just big businesses can play at the AI game).

>>jamesh+(OP)
Not to ignore, the development of AI will wipe out jobs in the state

>>Pet_An+K
To the best of my knowledge this doesn't happen so much in more functional democracies. It seems to be more of an anglophone thing.

>>hkt+m7
This is a product of incentives encouraged by the system (i.e. a federal republic), it has nothing to do with languages.

>>Aperoc+H8
It has much to do with culture though - which is transmitted via language.

>>hkt+m7
Corruption is a kind of decay that afflicts institutions. Explicit rules, transparency, checks and balances, and consequences for violating the rules are the only thing that can prevent, or diagnose, or treat corruption. Where you find corruption is where one or more of these things is lacking. It has absolutely nothing to do the -acry or -ism attached to a society, institution, or group.

>>jamesh+(OP)
> The point of elected representatives is to represent the views of their constituents, not to obtain special advantages for their constituents.

A lot of said constituents' views are, in practice, that they should receive special advantages.

>>Aperoc+H8
Seems like it’s under-studied (due to anglophone bias in the English language political science world probably) - but comparative political science is a discipline, and this paper suggests it’s a matter of single-member districts rather than the nature of the constitutional arrangement: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0010414090022004004

(I would just emphasize, before anyone complains, that the Federal Republic of Germany is very much a federal republic.)

>>jamesh+(OP)
> The point of elected representatives is to represent the views of their constituents, not to obtain special advantages for their constituents.

The views of their constituents are probably in favor of special advantages for their constituents, so the one may imply the other.

I mean, some elected representatives may represent constituencies consisting primarily of altruistic angels, but that is…not the norm.

>>hkt+3a
I think it's more like culture carries language with it. Along with other things, but language is one of the more recognizable ones.

>>titzer+hj
> Corruption is a kind of decay that afflicts institutions.

It can be, but often its often the project of a substantial subset of the people creating institutions, so its misleading and romanticizing the past to view it as “decay”.

>>dragon+qB
I am no way suggesting that corruption is a new thing. It is an erosive force that has always operated throughout history. The amount of corruption in an institution tends to increase unless specifically rooted out. It goes up and down over time as institutions rise and fall or fade in obsolescence.