"Technology will free mankind from labor and usher in an era where everyone is simply allocated whatever they requre" was a staple of leftism up until the USSR collapsed.
The difference is that today, unlike in the 20th century, there's a feasible path to post-scarcity. It's not "around the corner" but there's a path if you squint. Myabe it won't pan out, but it's worth a shot. The irony is that leftists want to ban AI to preserve scarcity thereby protecting people's jobs.
I think the difficulty for many people is not imagining a path to post-scarcity, per se, but instead that they have been given no commitments by their government or business leaders that they will get to benefit from it, after it is achieved.
It’s one thing to say something like: AI will enable lights out manufacturing and replace virtually all employees in that sector.
To which those employees respond: What will happen to us?
And they are told: things will be great, you won’t need to work in the factories any longer, and we will have no shortage of goods.
Do you see the missing link there? They might ask: “What happens to those goods? What happens to me? Do I get given the goods? Are the goods sold and then I am paid a stipend? I’m hungry. Will I still need to buy things? Okay, if so, but I have no money because I was fired.”
Well, historically, it's sort of worked out on its own. Automation displaces workers but also creates new jobs in other sectors. We have maintained full employment at higher wages.
That said, some displaced workers have experienced substantial difficulty moving to other industries, especially if those new jobs are in different cities or countries. And it is also possible that this time is different, although I'm not convinced.
That can work as long as consumption can increase infinitely to meet increased production. Unless consumption continues to increase, we will find ourselves unable to produce those new jobs in other industries.
But said history was not peaceful. Business leaders repeatedly attempted to use these transformations in tons of ways to screw over workers - for example, the only reason we no longer have lots of small children being mangled or killed at their factory jobs is because of workers who protested against unsafe working conditions and child labor. I see no reason to expect anything better from our corporate overlords of today, who are generally gleefully supporting fascist movements, or getting involved in illegally decimating government programs.
Given how much control capitalists have over almost every mechanism for organizing, I don't even know if such labor movements would still be possible today.
> Do you see the missing link there? They might ask: “What happens to those goods? What happens to me? Do I get given the goods? Are the goods sold and then I am paid a stipend? I’m hungry. Will I still need to buy things? Okay, if so, but I have no money because I was fired.”
This process will take generations. Over time, people will work less and less as productivity steadily increases (we already see this in the pre-AI era as technology has accumulated). Eventually, AI will do all necessary labor and goods/services will be incredibly cheap. Over the decades, as this situation develops, our governments will become more socialist/redistributionist.
Also, it's possible that this technology just doesn't pan out. There could be a bottleneck or a nuclear war or whatever. Maybe it just stops scaling, or it stays in the realm of text-generation and can't replace manual labor. But it's worth a shot, and leftists should get on board.
> This process will take generations... Over the decades, as this situation develops, our governments will become more socialist/redistributionist.
I think the crux is in how fast you think the technology is developing. The widespread view in Silicon Valley is that drop-in remote workers will be a reality within a couple years. Sam Altman is already claiming that AGI has been achieved [1]. Jack Clark from Anthropic puts a >50% chance on recursive self-improvement by the end of 2028 [2]. This is an enormous sector of labor being made redundant in a very short amount of time.
So the actions taken in this specific administration over these next few years become pivotal. The industry is unregulated and currently undergoing explosive growth in a way we haven't seen since the railroads, in entirely the wrong direction to Sanders' interests. He is a major player in the political process, so of course he will take measures to get things under control.
> But it's worth a shot, and leftists should get on board.
That's why the bill is about "temporarily pausing" development, not banning it forever.
This is to say nothing of the catastophic risks that the bill is actually mostly about, not just the labor disruptions.
There is no such thing as a post-scarcity world. Some resources are inherently scarce, such as social status, lifetime, or political power. As a result, even when productivity increases the benefits are hoarded by the few who wish to stand above all others. This has always held true regardless of political system.
If it weren't for that, we already live in a post-scarcity world. But as such a state is anathema to the human condition, we continually strive to create new forms of scarcity that can separate the elite from the commons.
Scarcity of status, fame, power, etc may be inevitable -- but that's fine. After all, people need stuff to do.
But if we solve food, hunger, housing, education, healthcare, and entertainment then that's enough for me. And no, it's not "the current political system" that prevents us from solving those problems now. Rather it's that engine of production is human labor, which forces us to rely on incentives.
When was the last time the United States had a famine caused by there not being enough food rather than because we decided certain people don't deserve food? Everything you named is a political problem caused by the desire to concentrate status, fame, and power. These are not problems that lack a technological solution.
In some sense I agree with you that starvation in the modern world is a political problem. Evidence for that is the common observation that famines don't occur in functioning liberal democracies.
But food production relies on more than technology. Human labor is necessary to produce food, and so incentives have to exist for people to do that work (prices, free markets, capitalism, inequality, etc). So if we decide "everyone deserves free food" then we are undermining the production of food. Why would people work in the fields when they could just collect their free food? Scarcity won't be truly gone until food is abundant whether or not there are any people working the fields.
Doesn't that just shift the problem away from incentivizing humans to incentivizing the godkings who own the robots? The scarcity becomes robot manufacturing.
Why should the owners undermine the value of their robots by providing free food for all? Those robots could be put to better use fighting wars instead.
Today, the decentralized nature of human labor means we have to incentivize people in broad ways. But if there's like 5 AI companies doing all the labor with their robots, we can just tax them and redistribute.
The owners/workers at AI companies won't resist the redistribution. It will be seen as inevitable as AI performs a greater and greater share of labor. Also, the AI company owners/workers will accrue massive status and fame; which will become the new currency (like you noted in your first post).
> The owners/workers at AI companies won't resist the redistribution.
I find this to be a somewhat incredible claim. I don't find it easy to believe such a thing. You can bring up enlightened self interest if you want, but you're going up against the entire history of humanity. I think it's more likely that something else will happen instead.
For example, you're underestimating the influence that being the ones to control all the labor in a society will grant these entities. When they reject your demands and send in the robot military to maintain order, how are you going to resist? Why should they bend when controlling all the labor will allow them to win?
This is what happens when people get "the entire history of humanity" from Howard Zinn-like sources. Healthy, stable societies are not based on the threat of violence, but rather consensual submission to a rule of law. As a rule, humans cooperate, play fairly, and want others to admire and respect them.
Why would the people who have control over this enormous automated labor force agree to taxation? How will you make them pay up if they tell you "no" and hide behind their robot army?
1. The government is already mostly focused on the needs of the rich, so this is anything but guaranteed. But say the government tries to force the rich - how, the military? Depending on the number of robots and how much military equipment is available (since the factories are fully controlled by the rich), it would turn into a numbers game.
Yet even with fewer robots than necessary for certain victory, if enough households own a robot, the rich could easily force the government to stand down by taking a small percentage of the population hostage.
2. They don't care about reputation, or we wouldn't have examples like "doing funny arm gestures at an inauguration" or the openly corrupt dealings we're seeing these days. Above status and fame they primarily care about power, but enslaving everyone else would give them all 3 of those things. And let's not act like they're too rational to delude themselves into thinking they'd still be morally righteous - again, just look at so many recent examples.
3. Attitudes don't stop bullets.
Really, I'd love to be wrong on all this, and for the Epstein class to be better than what they show everyone. But our system makes the greediest among us rise to the top, and after so many blatantly cruel actions I can't believe anyone still gives them the benefit of the doubt.
The other difference is that the current admin is possibly the least likely in American history to support a massive redistribution and "government mandated middle class lifestyle". And the development of this technology has thus far been without the consent of those whose livelihoods are most threatened by it. It's no wonder Sanders and other leftists want more oversight.
The other difference is that the current admin is possibly the least likely in American history to support a massive redistribution and "government mandated middle class lifestyle".
If there's a way Trump can claim credit for it, he'll have no problem with it. He has no actual ideology beyond self-promotion and self-enrichment.
The difference is that today, unlike in the 20th century, there's a feasible path to post-scarcity. It's not "around the corner" but there's a path if you squint. Myabe it won't pan out, but it's worth a shot. The irony is that leftists want to ban AI to preserve scarcity thereby protecting people's jobs.