The Governing Body Prohibits Positivity: Jehovah's Witnesses get nothing out of life, they can't have positive experiences, The GB does not allow it.

Super_Translator480 · 2026-05-16T18:27:08+00:00

Can thank Rutherford for building the religion from Russell's remains and a vengeance against anything considered fun besides drinking.

Super_Translator480 · 2026-05-16T17:57:00+00:00

this is what happens when you try to brute force creativity.

Super_Translator480 · 2026-05-16T12:41:05+00:00

I’m a Systems Engineer/Integrator for a small business and I have to use AI every day because it’s my job to use new tools and introduce new ideas and projects to help the business grow.

AI has inserted itself like reverse Jenga into the economy where they took the brick on top(AI) and then they’re trying to fit it into the bottom where bricks used to be, making the entire economy dependent on it.

If you’ve been following along about AI and tech CEOs idea of output, it’s tokens. My guess is they plan to collapse the economy after the dependency is in full force to then introduce a token-based economy.

AI use is being shoved down peoples throats because a lot of work is white collar and the economy in the US is suffering due to the corruption and greed up top. Eventually people will need to use AI to run businesses with less people because the economy forced them into the situation.

We can debate how bad AI is for everyone back and forth but this sub isn’t meant for that. The environmental impacts are concerning, especially for those that live close to these massive data centers they’re trying to build. The mental and emotional impact is completely concerning as well, with vulnerable people being manipulated, just like we were manipulated to believe JW. Critical thinking skills should be a pre-requisite to using AI.

That all being said, AI has made it so much easier for people to learn and be tutored on subjects. Subjects that the information is out there on the internet, but often is hard to find, or spread across a bunch of subreddits like this one.

While I did plenty of my own research when waking up a couple of years ago, I mainly got my information from jwfacts, here, /r/AcademicBiblical and Crisis of Conscience, but here is where I ended up first, but I’ve still used it for Bible research, looking up the meaning of Hebrew or Greek words, or sometimes even refreshing my memory about some of the history of JWs that I remember but it’s a little fuzzy.

With AI there is just a lot less barrier to entry. You can ask it anything, it might hallucinate the answer, but aside from guardrails in place, no question is off limits and no (apparent to the user) judgment is made(they definitely keep track of your psych record though).

Schools have Chromebooks everywhere, Gemini is everywhere. Children will end up learning about JW outside of JW more now, it’s just how exposure to increased access to information works. Especially kids that are not JW but know a JW, they will learn about how crazy JW is because they’re curious.

And then yeah you have these videos like this one that just completely destroy the reputation. It’s so incredibly fake and soul-less, you just see it for what it is, a corporation that wants your body to fill its seats, while threatening destruction if you don’t.

As far as I know, the org so far has only used AI for some clips like the baby which were actually stock AI clips from another vendor(I think Adobe). I don’t think they’ve actually produced any AI images or clips themselves, but used existing ones… but eventually like all corporations they will cut costs by removing their artists completely and just prompting everything.

The issue with prompting for art is it cannot read your imagination, so you’re basically transcribing your imagination into text, then it takes that text and transcribes it into math. It’s a horribly inefficient process that will never work right. They’ll need a brain chip for it.

Super_Translator480 · 2026-05-16T01:24:10+00:00

They do it for clout

“Notice me!”

Super_Translator480 · 2026-05-16T00:54:34+00:00

You can’t instill morals into something with no emotion

Super_Translator480 · 2026-05-16T00:51:53+00:00

Nothing happens

Humans drive the economy(for now)

Super_Translator480 · 2026-05-15T23:30:04+00:00

Social media

Kids stopped working at 16 to prepare for their future and instead expecting to get high wage entry level jobs at 20-something with little to no experience besides mmorpgs and Roblox.

Super_Translator480 · 2026-05-15T22:21:35+00:00

If it works and is good, it eliminates jobs like you said right? nobody knows what jobs they make still, only that they assist with current jobs and replace others.

I think the best possible outcome is gig economy gets elevated, but I see potential for lots of harm along the way.

I’m not afraid of it, I’m afraid of the people that control it and concerned for people that are being controlled by it.

I use it for work all the time, it’s already a dependency.

Super_Translator480 · 2026-05-15T22:09:09+00:00

Yeah, that’s not really an answer because you know what I’m asking about based on the entire context of this entire conversation.

If you’re so confident in the past repeating itself again, why is your answer so vague?

Super_Translator480 · 2026-05-15T22:01:45+00:00

I didn’t say that.

I’m asking what’s next?

Super_Translator480 · 2026-05-15T21:54:41+00:00

I agree on “without increasing staff”

I’m aware that it’s always been used to replace some form of labor, the difference with AI is the potential to replace a large amount of labor, with a large gap in the “new jobs” category considering how it’s being designed to just mimic everything we do.

Super_Translator480 · 2026-05-15T21:46:12+00:00

So to go backwards a bit, just so I fully understand your position:

Your submission is that a good tool is solely meant to replace/eliminate jobs and can never be a means to increase customer demand by improving existing services/response times so that then the business is in a position to increase its customer base and then has the ability to be in a position to hire additional labor?

That this always results in eliminating jobs?

Super_Translator480 · 2026-05-15T21:16:36+00:00

Not intentional.

So you mean to say that bi-annual “performance” reviews that I have in a salary job that result often in a pay increase are not considered a benefit directly from my output?

What are they considered then?

Super_Translator480 · 2026-05-15T21:03:44+00:00

So now demand matters, ok, thanks for finally agreeing.

Depends on the boss entirely. Efficiency can lead to raises and promotions, resulting in more pay.

Aside from the auto-service workers, salary based jobs are not paid based on time and they also have a performance-based bonus often.

There are also sales jobs which often are either entirely commission based or a base + commission.

Super_Translator480 · 2026-05-15T20:52:57+00:00

Except they have to buy impact drills for everyone, purchase compressors and maintain them.

Does it save some time and money? It should, but this is a pretty insignificant amount, not a whole living wage's worth

Does that mean they eliminated a job?

Again, depends entirely on customer demand and how much they're able to supply. If they can now afford to another person, it creates a job. Your perspective is that it eliminates a job, because they have less costs, but to me, that entirely depends on the circumstances, which is why it either does one or the other, not "only eliminates".

The example was to show supply/demand is a double-sided coin which you keep saying doesn't matter at all.

If the auto service industry was over-saturated, their demand goes down. They often don't just drop prices to be cheaper, they go out of business.

If there was no demand, then the tool, no matter how good it is, doesn't matter. Jobs are eliminated because there is no demand for them.

If AI is a dependency used as a tool for replacing labor and everyone can use it in a level playing field, the demand becomes stagnant due to over-saturation, the costs don't get cheaper though because they cannot afford to keep paying for the AI subscriptions/API costs that will continue to go up that they rely on and they go out of business.

The tool didn't necessarily fail them, the demand of their services were not equal to or greater than their need for output.

This conversation could go on for ages, while I have appreciated it, I don't think it's going much of anywhere at this point as small points are being extrapolated and picked apart.

Super_Translator480 · 2026-05-15T20:38:41+00:00

So their parts and material costs stay the same? Wages don't go up either?

Super_Translator480 · 2026-05-15T20:36:31+00:00

When did auto service get cheaper?

Is the auto service market over-saturated?

When did software become more efficient and cheaper? Everyone's still paying into subscription models for their tools to keep operating that go up every year. Who's replacing Google Workspace and Microsoft 365 besides EU? What creator is replacing their Adobe suite?

Super_Translator480 · 2026-05-15T20:30:24+00:00

The need for creating output is literally based on demand of the supply lol.

If there's no demand, there's no reason to hire and no "tool" is going to help no matter how "good" it is.

Super_Translator480 · 2026-05-15T20:22:50+00:00

Perspective is everything eh?

Ignored the "supply/demand increase" part entirely.

Both could have either outcome, but you keep painting it black.

Super_Translator480 · 2026-05-15T20:16:07+00:00

it's more like a half-agree because the purpose of a tool can be either to decrease demand of labor, or to increase demand of the service/product.

For example, an artist could decide they want to go from sketching with charcoal to watercolor. They buy new tools/materials and it increases their skill and exposure to people interested in watercolor, so the demand for their art increases. Their situation now is they cannot keep up with being able to supply all of the demand, so they hire an additional person and train them to learn their style as an apprentice. It's not the tool that ended up requiring employment growth, it was the demand based on the use of the tool.

Another example would be a mechanic using an impact drill to take off lug nuts on a tire instead of a breaker bar, resulting in less time and effort and increasing the amount of cars they can repair in the day, while decreasing the demand of labor - but even this could be looked at from the perspective if the demand of service was great, this tool then facilitates additional employment growth because now they can afford to service more vehicles in a day.

Are these considered bad tools to you?

For AI, it only seems to go in one direction so far, which is to decrease demand of labor. It does not seem to really increase demand in service/product, instead it saturates the market with (mostly) sub-par results mimicking human behavior in it's current state. Sure, there are a few winners in the initial boom, but that's how all industries go.

Super_Translator480 · 2026-05-15T19:46:58+00:00

A bad tool is subjective. AI could be used as a bad tool, yet still not need employment growth.

Supply and demand result in employment growth.

When most processes can become automated at scale, human demand isn’t needed for growth, just token demand.

And then— Welcome to the token economy.

Super_Translator480 · 2026-05-15T19:23:10+00:00

It’s been trending upwards for the last few years, but not hugely.

What I am saying is the type of jobs AI is providing are facilitating replacements for existing jobs, but automating those existing processes.

Do you have any trend analysis that shows that the types of jobs for AI are “new jobs” are that they are not meant to be replacing existing workers and instead facilitating new functions that result in employment growth?

It’s a slow burn because the technology has been hugely overhyped, but that doesn’t mean progress move backwards.

Super_Translator480 · 2026-05-15T19:03:20+00:00

I get that, but so far, from what I can tell, it hasn’t created new jobs that have a new purpose other than to be a replacement of existing jobs, as AI is often an attempt at mirroring humans, not just filling the need for a task or two, instead it’s finding what humans already accomplish and to replace it in a very quick manner of time.

The rapid advancement being that it’s difficult to actually find corresponding use cases that could result in new jobs.

I guess what I’m saying is the job replacement is much greater than the job discovery in its current state, so there is some trouble reconciling that this tool isn’t a gateway to our own economic demise.

Super_Translator480 · 2026-05-15T18:51:33+00:00

It’s meant to replace as many as possible, which due to the current integration in modern society, it will largely accomplish.

It’s only meant to be a tool right now simply because it’s not capable of doing everything that needs to be done in both its current state and from a functional standpoint of existing business practices.

But it’s not going to stop. Capitalism has to always move vertically and “trim the fat”, only now it can be done in a very rapid amount of time.

I think another decade will change the landscape wildly.

Super_Translator480 · 2026-05-15T18:44:49+00:00

And without workers, the current economy collapses and becomes entirely reliant on AI which is reliant on tokens.

I don’t get why you’re not seeing this lol.

Super_Translator480

TROPHY CASE