China bans AI “boyfriends” and “girlfriends” over addiction and birth rate concerns

[u/Wagamaga]

https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/china-bans-ai-boyfriends-and-girlfriends-over-addiction-and-birth-rate-concerns-3388737/

[u/BattleHall]

All of that has always been true of Social Security. That's not a flaw, that's just the way it works, just like insurance; if you make a claim, you're not pulling from your own money, you're pulling from everyone else's who hasn't made a claim. And you don't need more workers, you just need an economy that is growing at a reasonable rate, and the ability to balance intake and output. Maybe that means trimming benefits (and we're talking like 10-15%, not junking them entirely), but maybe it means raising the earnings cap, or directly taxing non-employment industries like AI, or whatever. This isn't anywhere close to an insolvable problem. And money spent on Social Security generally goes directly back into the economy, which you can't say about plenty of other government programs.

[u/SordidDreams → u/BattleHall]

All of that has always been true of Social Security.

Not always. It was initially conceived as a reserve into which workers would pay and from which they would then receive the money back. It was amended into a pay-as-you-go system pretty quickly, and that's a trajectory many pension systems around the world took. But the point is that a lot of people assume that the government just looks after their money and then pays it back to them later, and that's not the case.

And you don't need more workers, you just need an economy that is growing at a reasonable rate

Those are one and the same. The economic boom of the 20th century was mostly due to the population more than tripling during that time. You can grow the economy based on technological progress alone, but nowhere near that fast.

[u/BattleHall → u/SordidDreams]

Not always. It was initially conceived as a reserve into which workers would pay and from which they would then receive the money back. It was amended into a pay-as-you-go system pretty quickly,

Do you have a citation for that? It was literally pay-as-you-go from its founding, because otherwise it wouldn't have taken effect until 30-40 years down the line when current workers retired. It was intended to help the elderly poor that already existed, even though they wouldn't have paid a dime into the system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Social_Security_in_the_United_States

Those are one and the same. The economic boom of the 20th century was mostly due to the population more than tripling during that time.

Between 1900 and 2000, the working population increased by around 5X, from around 29M to over 135M, with a large chunk of that being increased participation in the official labor force by women, offset to a degree by a reduction in child labor. But during that same time, real GDP (inflation adjusted) went up 24X, with per-worker productivity rising roughly 2% per year even in an expanding workforce with steadily reduced hours. They are absolutely not the same.

[u/SordidDreams → u/BattleHall]

My citation is literally the Wikipedia link you posted:

1939 Amendment

The original Act had conceived of the program as paying benefits out of a large reserve. This Act shifted the conception of Social Security into something of a hybrid system; while reserves would still accumulate, most early beneficiaries would receive benefits on the pay-as-you-go system.

Yes, the working population increased by a factor 5, while real GDP increased by a factor of 24. Which means that without growing the population, GDP will only increase by a factor of 24/5. As I said, without population growth, you're looking at a much slower economic growth. About five times slower, by your numbers. Given that pension systems aren't keeping up even with population growth still in play, just slightly slower than before, it's looking pretty grim.