D&D General DMs Guild and DriveThruRPG ban AI written works, requires labels for AI generated art

[soviet]

that is a strawman, a billionaire will never be in a position to make that choice.

The point is this - people don't "need" anything beyond survival needs and data indicates that more wealth does not bring more happiness. That billionaire is not happier because she has a different choice on luxury.

Your argument is that at some point it is enough, but that is a fundamentally flawed argument and billionaires feel a "need" more money for the things they want to the same degree that the poor or working class feel a "need" for additional things they want.

At the end of the day there is no "need" for a second jet and no "need" for electricity and neither of those things will make you happier just because you have them.

Billionaires not being probably happy or sane does not mean that there isn't a decent goldilocks zone in the middle where you have enough money to basically be comfortable and content.

 

[MoonSong]

that is a strawman, a billionaire will never be in a position to make that choice.

The point is this - people don't "need" anything beyond survival needs and data indicates that more wealth does not bring more happiness. That billionaire is not happier because she has a different choice on luxury.

Your argument is that at some point it is enough, but that is a fundamentally flawed argument and billionaires "need" more money for the things they want to the same degree that the poor "need" additional things.

A lot of poor people do survive. It doesn't mean that their lives are good. You need a few more things than mere survival. Having enough well being (sleeping/resting enough, being able to make healthy food choices, having time to form and mantain bonds with others, having the time, energy and opportunity to experience joy and form meaning) is also important otherwise you are stuck in a miserable lonely existence until the moment you drop dead early. And that also requires resources. Calling that "luxuries" is dismissive of the human experience. These are also needs. None of that requires the latest iphone or foldable phone, and it is disengenoius to compare important human needs with superfluous junk nobody really needs.

 

[ECMO3]

Billionaires not being probably happy or sane does not mean that there isn't a decent goldilocks zone in the middle where you have enough money to basically be comfortable and content.

No it does mean exactly that.

You can be comfortable and content once your basic needs arfe met and there are people in the world who are, millions apon millions of them. On the other side of the coin there are Billionaires who are not comfortable and content.

Being comfortable and content is not related to wealth once basic survival needs are met and the drive to have more wealth is not subdivided by class.

 

[Scribe]

Billionaires do want more money and they don't want it any less, nor do they think they need it any less than poor people think they need more money.

We call that delusion. Just because someone believes something, feels it just as much as someone feels something else, doesnt make it reality.

Wealth inequality, quality of life differences, I mean do a image search for any north american city and compare it (correctly) to the vast majority of places where people do live and survive, and you are right there is inequality.

If your argument was 'we need AI to bring everyone down to the same level as undeveloped nations' I would have an easier time understanding that I suppose.

 

[MoonSong]

Billionaires not being probably happy or sane does not mean that there isn't a decent goldilocks zone in the middle where you have enough money to basically be comfortable and content.

User name checks out n_n

 

[ECMO3]

A lot of poor people do survive. It doesn't mean that their lives are good.

Actually it does mean a lot of their lives are good. Not all of them certainly some of them.

You need a few more things than mere survival.

No you don't, and billions of people worldwide show that to be a false statement.

Having enough well being (sleeping/resting enough, being able to make healthy food choices, having time to form and mantain bonds with others, having the time, energy and opportunity to experience joy and form meaning) is also important otherwise you are stuck in a miserable lonely existence until the moment you drop dead early.

Being miserable and lonely is not a function of wealth and when looking at it globally wealth actually is correlated to less healthy food choices, mostly becasue of the correlation between wealth and obesity.

The USA is one of the wealthiest countries in the world and is 47th in life expectancy

And that also requires resources. Calling that "luxuries" is dismissive of the human experience. These are also needs. None of that requires the latest iphone or foldable phone, and it is disengenoius to compare important human needs with superfluous junk nobody really needs.

I agree but basic human needs which can be purchased by money are food and shelter and the costs for that at the level of basic need is minimal.

The idea that humans "need" electricity or running water is contrary to 5000 years of civilization and the argument that those are necessary to be happy would presume that no one was happy anywhere in the world until the 20th century.

 

[Maxperson]

that is a strawman, a billionaire will never be in a position to make that choice.

It's not a Strawman, because he didn't ascribe an argument to you or anyone else and then argue against it. What he did was offer up a counterargument that even a billionaire would see a difference between the two types of luxuries, and he's right. That a billionaire won't be in that position isn't really relevant.

The point is this - people don't "need" anything beyond survival needs and data indicates that more wealth does not bring more happiness. That billionaire is not happier because she has a different choice on luxury.

Actually there are studies that wealth does bring more happiness. It just caps out waaaaaay before billionaire.

At the end of the day there is no "need" for a second jet and no "need" for electricity and neither of those things will make you happier just because you have them.

Yeeeaaaaaaah, no. Having a second jet, or even a first one won't make me happier. I can tell you though, having just had my power go out for 9 hours the other day here in Southern California, having electricity makes me MUCH happier because I have it. You're just plain wrong on that one.

 

[Maxperson]

Billionaires not being probably happy or sane does not mean that there isn't a decent goldilocks zone in the middle where you have enough money to basically be comfortable and content.

One study said happiness peaked at $75,000 in income. Now, economists say it's higher — by a lot.

It turns out that money can buy happiness for most people — although some may remain miserable no matter what.

www.cbsnews.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/03/08/money-wealth-happiness-study/

Money can and does buy happiness, but it just caps out well before billionaire status.

 

[ECMO3]

Actually there are studies that wealth does bring more happiness. It just caps out waaaaaay before billionaire.

Yes as I have stated, it craps out right after basic survival needs are met.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes as I have stated, it craps out right after basic survival needs are met.

Er... If 200k a year is "right after basic survival needs are met," then the vast majority of the world is miserable.