Steve Bannon and Bernie Sanders don’t agree on much. But both think that AI is a disaster for the working class. The Vermont senator recently wrote that “AI oligarchs do not want to just replace specific jobs. They want to replace workers.” Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist, made similar comments last week: Silicon Valley does “not care about the little guy,” he said in a podcast episode titled “Stopping the AI Oligarchs From Stealing Humanity.” This emergent “Bernie-to-Bannon” coalition points to the growing bipartisan anxiety over AI. In polls, the United States ranks among the countries most concerned about AI. America is both the world’s foremost developer of AI and its chief hater.
Recently, Maine passed the country’s first statewide data-center moratorium (though the bill was vetoed by the governor). Nationally, a record number of proposed projects were canceled in the first quarter of this year following local pushback. Meanwhile, in extreme cases, concerns about AI appear to be tipping into violence. In April, someone shot 13 rounds at an Indianapolis councilman’s house and left a note under his doormat: “NO DATA CENTERS,” it read. Days later, a man threw a Molotov cocktail at Sam Altman’s home before heading to OpenAI’s headquarters, where he allegedly threatened to burn down the building and kill anyone inside. (The man has since pleaded not guilty to several charges, including attempted murder.) Social-media posts applauding the attack racked up thousands of likes: “I hope that Molotov is okay!” wrote one commenter.
All of this may be only the start. The AI industry has spent recent years warning of a jobless future. So far, narratives about labor displacement have been largely speculation. While a smattering of tech executives have attributed job cuts to AI, many analysts have accused these CEOs of “AI-washing”—essentially, using the technology as a scapegoat for roles they would have eliminated regardless. If anything, AI has mostly been a financial boon for the country, buoying the stock market and driving growth. But that could all change, of course. Imagine the uproar if jobs across the economy truly start disappearing en masse.
Glad the subheader is “Imagine what happens if jobs actually start disappearing.”
There’s just still not a lot of evidence that LLMs could take a substantial number of jobs away, unless your job is spam, advertising or propaganda. Corporations are blaming AI but there just isn’t the evidence to support the idea that those fired workers are anything other than normal downsizing (that conveniently help fit the narrative and boost the stock price).
IF an AI gets invented that actually begins making humans unemployable, the economy as it exists wouldn’t be able to withstand it …who would pay for things if there are no jobs? Why provide goods and services for money if nobody can pay for it? Even being a billionare would be pointless because if everyone else’s economic value is zero they can’t be compelled to do anything with your worthless slop money.
if world was better place, this could mean that people have more time to do things that are important to them and everyone’s life would improve. But as its now, it just means we are more expendable so that the pedophile class can pig out even more. Any technological advance will just make our lives worse as long as we live under the rule of the rich. Hell, even if they managed to cure cancer it would just mean it takes even longer for the fuckers to die out while we watch our loved ones wither away.
No, no. There’s little evidence that LLMs could do your job. That’s very different from the LLMs “taking” your job. All business owners need is the belief – grounded or not – that the LLMs will eventually be able to do your job, and for way less than you were being paid.
Neither will be true, of course, but business decisions are not based on truth.
I think your argument depends on rational leadership with a horizon more than a couple years out and grounded in tangible value delivered.
My read of the situation is that leadership is motivated by short term gains and FOMO, and a substantial part of the US economy is disguised garbage production, so replacing many jobs with AI will increase profits without obviously damaging corporations for a couple years.
This assumes they have any intention on keeping us alive. Everyone has had the thought of what it would be like to inhabit the earth alone. Taken to its conclusion most would have a few compelling reasons in both the pros/cons category. For most people the lack of companionship, other folks to enjoy life with, lack of music / film / other art would be a significant draw back. The empty roads, beaches, not having to work / deal with money would be fun, but maybe not worth the rest. On top of all that, it’s simply a thought experiment, a fantasy, none of us would ever really want nor have the means to enact.
Billionaires don’t have the same constraints about means, already don’t need us for anything other than service, and until recently, to enjoy our artistic contributions. My tinfoil hat take is that they started on the generative AI for arts a safe starting point that also secures they’ll have access to music / art / media once they start ramping up domination.
Who can they serve if nobody can pay?
I meant they need us to serve them. We are the help.
That’s assuming the hypothetical superintelligence is willing to do the bidding of billionares. But I’m not sure how the billionares would control something that is smarter than them and also doesn’t rely on money to stay alive.