Comment by tdeck
4 hours ago
> But why so anti AI specfically?
Because society is structured so that every time some labor-saving innovation comes along, it's used as a tool to drive down wages and reduce workers' bargaining power. And they leaders of these industries aren't exactly hiding it.
You might be able to game it in the short term, but It's not like anyone is seriously thinking this will reduce the totality of our efforts in the long term. Employers are already champing at the bit to reduce headcount and increase output targets.
The only hope these people have to offer in their bleak future is that if you play your cards right, you might be one of the few crabs to climb over the other crabs and escape the bucket before it's dumped into the kettle. It's giving "we need one person from each department to stay on and train the India team after the layoffs" vibes.
Yep. In theory, labor saving innovation (or handing jobs off overseas) should be a joyous occasional all. It could be a joyous occasion for all. But we have structured it so that, the moment it happens, 200% of the benefits go to capital and -100% go to labor -- and the consolation prize for labor is that maybe some of the 200% will trickle down into a different job later, or willingness to spend on overpriced haircuts, or something.
There's an argument to be made that this is a necessary component of an economy that can reinvent itself. Maybe. But even if we accept this convenient and self-serving and suspicious premise, there can then be no concession on the point that structuring it this way creates an obligation on the part of the person receiving 200% to "spread it around" and that attempts to dodge this obligation are morally repugnant, socially unacceptable, and ought to be met with harsh political backpressure.
For the last while, that hasn't been the thinking. Instead we have gone for "blame mexicans and let's see if we can't make it 300%!" The response of the kids gives me hope that people might be coming back to their senses on the matter.
There's an argument to be made that this is just part of a repeating cycle of history. Powerful people have always, will always, and are currently using their power to make themselves more powerful - no matter whether the power takes the form of nobility titles, currency, or company directorships. History consists of a continuous gradual increase in "top 1% wealth" punctuated by sharp decreases.
I agree, this is a reason to boo the (tech) elites. But they seem to boo genAI specifically, right? I'd understand it if they'd just started booing right from the first word.
Somehow, wages tend to go up, though:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q
Nice try, now use a deflator that doesn't systematically understate housing and forced substitution.
Innovation can make specific skills obsolete; but only if the output of the process actually gets cheaper or better...
It results in the output becoming available to people at a lower price point.
It's not some artificial social system like unions guilds or cartels, it's a tangible thing that actually produces more output with less (or different) workers.
If the tech CEO dream that they are selling that LLMs replace all white collar work within a few years who is going to have money to buy anything at the lower price point?