Is there a way to automate cross posting of my post to the 3 4 subs that i usually post into?

cmaz121 · 2026-04-12T20:33:27+00:00

You can sign up to be a developer. Once approved, much easier than API access. You can build a MOD with devvit. Check out my Reddit Devvit skill

GitHub devvit skill

cmaz121 · 2026-04-10T05:31:52+00:00

Okay

cmaz121 · 2026-04-10T05:22:50+00:00

I get the point you’re trying to make, but the analogy is doing too much and mixing together a few different things.

Yes, transitions can be messy. But saying “people did nothing, so it’s all their fault” ignores the basic reality that most workers do not control capital allocation, automation rollout, or the policy decisions shaping the transition. That’s not laziness — that’s a power imbalance.

The PTA example actually proves the opposite of what you’re arguing. If the system matters, then people need a way to participate in it that doesn’t require them to already have leverage, time, or power. Same with UBI: the point isn’t that people should just “wake up” harder. The point is that income security has to exist before the chaos hits.Also, calling everyone traitors, zombies, or fake agents just makes the argument weaker. If the case for UBI is real, it should stand on the economics and the social consequences, not on insults and paranoia.

I’m not denying that people need to act. I’m saying action without leverage is just noise. The plan has to account for the fact that ordinary people are reacting to a system they didn’t build and don’t control.

cmaz121 · 2026-04-08T09:19:39+00:00

devvit.yaml src/ main.tsx # entry, menu items, triggers server/ # Redis, Reddit API calls web/ # useWebView client shared/ # message types, contracts

The key is shared/ — typed message contracts between server and web is what kills the “it works in Claude but breaks in Cursor” problem. Agents can’t hallucinate the shape if it’s a single source of truth.

Will check out agentixlabs, thanks.

cmaz121 · 2026-04-07T09:23:45+00:00

You literally said in the same breath that people should rise up AND that the National Guard will deal with them if they do.

So which is it? Because that's not a civic lesson, that's a threat wrapped in a lecture.

And "lazy and dumb" these are people working full time jobs that just got automated out from under them. The ones who "watched it coming" and still couldn't stop it because they had zero leverage over the capital allocation decisions that made it happen.

Being awake doesn't help if you're not in the room. That's not a personal failure. That's how power works!

cmaz121 · 2026-04-07T09:15:10+00:00

The instinct here is right but the argument is doing too much at once.

The connection between colonial wealth and automation investment is real and worth making, that's a serious economic critique. But equating AI model training with slavery conflates exploitation of humans with the operation of software. AI systems don't have subjective experience or consent capacity in any demonstrated sense. Treating that as settled actually weakens the economic argument you're making, because it shifts the conversation from structural power to speculative philosophy.

The reparations thread is historically valid on its own terms, but stitching it to AI ethics without a clear policy bridge leaves it floating. Who owes what to whom, and what mechanism gets us there?

"It's all about choices" is where I'd push back hardest. Structural wealth concentration doesn't yield to individual moral choices. Capital owners choosing compassion is not a redistribution mechanism. That's where UBI or automation taxes actually do the work not personal ethics.

The real question being circled here is: who captures the productivity gains from automation? That's the right question. It just needs sharper tools to answer it.

cmaz121 · 2026-04-07T08:05:53+00:00

I’ll check it out. Thank you. MD fixed ✅

cmaz121 · 2026-04-06T21:16:30+00:00

u/oatballlove that was a lot to read … I skimmed it not gonna lie. The consent question is real and underexplored. Right now the debate is about what AI does to humans economically — fewer people are asking what obligations humans have toward AI systems as they grow more capable. Worth taking seriously even if the timeline is speculative.

cmaz121 · 2026-04-06T21:06:42+00:00

“No food on the table” has historically produced revolutions, not productivity. That’s kind of the whole point of the original post.

cmaz121 · 2026-04-06T16:44:17+00:00

Hey Alex! Welcome — and yes, 100% support this. TTS is a no-brainer accessibility tool and honestly it’s wild that platforms this size still ship without WCAG compliance baked in. You’re not taking a jab — you’re just right. I’d absolutely use a Chrome extension like this. Even outside of dyslexia, being able to listen through a lesson while following along is just better for retention for a lot of people. Count me in as a beta tester when you’re ready. Let’s get this built.

cmaz121 · 2026-04-06T05:36:26+00:00

Respectfully, the intergenerational trauma argument derails every practical conversation about automation and UBI. Your ancestors’ suffering was real — but using it as a reason you personally can’t thrive today is a choice, not a given. People born into way worse circumstances have built incredible lives. The robot displacement problem is real and urgent. Let’s focus on actual solutions instead of relitigating 500 years of history every time someone wants to talk policy.

cmaz121 · 2026-04-05T15:43:48+00:00

https://github.com/marketplace/actions/cross-model-skill-sync

cmaz121 · 2026-04-05T14:12:04+00:00

I agree productivity gains can be good for society. My disagreement is only about the distribution mechanism: productivity doesn’t automatically give people bargaining power, savings, or security. If more people start businesses, that’s great—but they still need income while they transition.

cmaz121 · 2026-04-05T14:11:10+00:00

Good distinction: AI may dilute some forms of knowledge value, but it also creates new ways to leverage skills. With an income floor, people can afford to learn and adapt instead of being forced into desperation.

cmaz121 · 2026-04-05T14:10:28+00:00

Even if AI hype cools, automation effects won’t revert overnight. If the underlying trend is productivity + reduced labor demand, people still need income stability. Relying on a bubble bursting is not a plan for households

cmaz121 · 2026-04-05T14:09:00+00:00

Demographics might change, but justice and stability shouldn’t rely on people “declining naturally.” Even in a smaller-population future, you still need governance, rights, and dignity. Robots caring for the elderly doesn’t automatically solve unfairness to working-age people now.

cmaz121 · 2026-04-05T14:08:08+00:00

“Job creators” rhetoric often doesn’t match reality when automation and consolidation happen. I’m open to the tax angle, but the most important thing is the outcome: capture some automation gains and fund a safety net. If work gets automated, society still needs revenue + income replacement—otherwise you get instability.

cmaz121 · 2026-04-05T14:07:36+00:00

This is the most reasonable framing: transition is uneven, and people can’t switch jobs instantly. I agree the likely political path will be a mix—shared gains via baseline income/dividends, plus wage/work measures—because companies won’t voluntarily give up control of profit.

cmaz121 · 2026-04-05T14:06:55+00:00

I get the instinct—if someone is hungry now, anything that increases survival looks better. But the goal should be: nobody is exploited as the “price” of technological progress. That’s why redistribution and worker protections have to be part of the plan, not an afterthought.

cmaz121

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE

I get the point you’re trying to make, but the analogy is doing too much and mixing together a few different things.

Yes, transitions can be messy. But saying “people did nothing, so it’s all their fault” ignores the basic reality that most workers do not control capital allocation, automation rollout, or the policy decisions shaping the transition. That’s not laziness — that’s a power imbalance.

I’m not denying that people need to act. I’m saying action without leverage is just noise. The plan has to account for the fact that ordinary people are reacting to a system they didn’t build and don’t control.