One thing I've noticed about AI is that since it's not replacing "labor" that it's actually the intellectuals this time that are freaking out more than the worker bees. And although the thinkers are doing their best to freak out the worker bees, it doesn't seem to be sticking.
This means that most average people would accept their AI overlords and probably would not miss their old leaders even slightly. I doubt the average laborer would lament the loss of their dear leaders any more than intellectuals missed the laborers who were replaced. The intellectuals got cheaper products so what did they care? Workers will feel the same about government/office employees who get replaced by an AI.
I wouldn't even assume that AI would be worse, although I would assume that the people at the top will never allow themselves to be replaced, so AI isn't going to change who rules the world.
Automation was of course a huge concern for the average worker, now people who work with their brains rather than their hands are worried about losing their jobs, so suddenly it's a big deal. Well, boo hoo, I don't want to pay extra for the use of brain power any more than intellectuals wanted to pay extra for the use of muscle power.
I just look at AI as Automation for the brain. I don't think it will replace true thinkers though, it will just replace the mundane jobs that require basic thinking. Just like Robots couldn't actually replace all workers, AI will not replace all thinkers or even close. People who can come up with NEW ideas, products, inventions or solutions will be even more valuable, accountants and bureaucrats and paper pushers in general, not so much.
The same exact people who reassured the American public that automation was good for the economy (It was) are now worried that the same process will be bad for them. What was good for the goose isn't good for the gander. And yes it could be bad for some people who make a living with their brain, but that doesn't mean it will be bad for the economy, not any more so than when robots took over labor jobs.
I'm personally more worried about being left behind on the technology front than I am of AI and I rather doubt world leaders will ever want to give up their power to a computer. In fact they would pass a law to prevent it rather fast if they thought it could happen, that I'm sure of. They will let AI take your job and even to allow minor bureaucrats to be let go, they will not voluntarily give up their own hold on power.
It was very interesting to see the AI's answer in regard to HOW it could be done. This same process is being used right now to gain compliance. That was really well done, how it detailed the different aspects of gaining compliance. Smart computer.
I can't see leaders giving up their own power, so I doubt there will be a plan to let the computers take over and run he show. Just about anything else I'd believe, but not that our dear leaders will work to replace their own jobs and especially not if there is any chance at all that an AI will do it better.
As far as I can tell, from what I read online, Artificial Intelligence, in the role of managing/ directing humans, hasn't yet developed the ability to lie, and misdirect, in order to "suck up" to a boss, nor to "explain away", or blame, its own shortcomings, on a subordinate. Not that it couldn't ... but probably hasn't found a reason to do so, yet.
I asked my AI how it would respond to your post....
The core argument about the differential impacts of automation on manual vs. intellectual labor raises some interesting points, but there may be several areas worth examining more deeply:
First, the framing of "intellectuals vs. workers" creates a somewhat artificial dichotomy. Many jobs combine physical and cognitive elements, and the impacts of AI are likely to cut across these traditional divisions. A construction supervisor uses both physical skills and complex decision-making, while a software developer engages in both abstract thinking and routine coding tasks.
The comparison to historical automation is insightful but might be an oversimplification. While industrial automation primarily affected discrete physical tasks, AI's impact appears more pervasive across different types of work. The technology can handle both routine cognitive tasks (like basic accounting) and more complex analytical work (like legal research or medical diagnosis).
The assertion that "workers will feel the same from government employees who get replaced by AI" might overlook differences in how public services function compared to consumer goods. When a factory automates production, consumers might benefit from cheaper products. But government services often require human judgment, accountability, and democratic oversight in ways that may not cleanly parallel industrial automation.
Your point about power structures - that those at the top are unlikely to allow themselves to be replaced - raises questions about who controls AI development and deployment. However, this may underestimate how AI could reshape power dynamics in unexpected ways, even if not through direct replacement of leadership.
The distinction between "true thinkers" and routine cognitive work is worth a look. While AI may be better suited to handle predictable analytical tasks, the line between routine and creative thinking isn't always clear. Many innovations come from recombining existing ideas in novel ways - something AI systems are increasingly capable of doing.
What about the potential for AI to create new types of jobs and roles, rather than just replacing existing ones? Historical automation often led to the emergence of entirely new categories of work - maybe AI would pull that off, too...
It's a good response, more logical than most liberals although it would be easy to argue with it, to get it to take a new position. At least the ones I've seen in action usually work that way. For instance, prompt it with how much government costs and mention how many people, who are working class, who hate the government and it will probably agree that very few "workers" will miss those particular paper pushers.
Nobody had the guts to name their AI (which should be renamed Ai so all the Als don’t get confused) SkyNet…
As soon as I finish coding, I'll do that!
You were laid off?
Feeble attempt at sarcasm...!
You or me?
Both?
One thing I've noticed about AI is that since it's not replacing "labor" that it's actually the intellectuals this time that are freaking out more than the worker bees. And although the thinkers are doing their best to freak out the worker bees, it doesn't seem to be sticking.
This means that most average people would accept their AI overlords and probably would not miss their old leaders even slightly. I doubt the average laborer would lament the loss of their dear leaders any more than intellectuals missed the laborers who were replaced. The intellectuals got cheaper products so what did they care? Workers will feel the same about government/office employees who get replaced by an AI.
I wouldn't even assume that AI would be worse, although I would assume that the people at the top will never allow themselves to be replaced, so AI isn't going to change who rules the world.
Automation was of course a huge concern for the average worker, now people who work with their brains rather than their hands are worried about losing their jobs, so suddenly it's a big deal. Well, boo hoo, I don't want to pay extra for the use of brain power any more than intellectuals wanted to pay extra for the use of muscle power.
I just look at AI as Automation for the brain. I don't think it will replace true thinkers though, it will just replace the mundane jobs that require basic thinking. Just like Robots couldn't actually replace all workers, AI will not replace all thinkers or even close. People who can come up with NEW ideas, products, inventions or solutions will be even more valuable, accountants and bureaucrats and paper pushers in general, not so much.
The same exact people who reassured the American public that automation was good for the economy (It was) are now worried that the same process will be bad for them. What was good for the goose isn't good for the gander. And yes it could be bad for some people who make a living with their brain, but that doesn't mean it will be bad for the economy, not any more so than when robots took over labor jobs.
I'm personally more worried about being left behind on the technology front than I am of AI and I rather doubt world leaders will ever want to give up their power to a computer. In fact they would pass a law to prevent it rather fast if they thought it could happen, that I'm sure of. They will let AI take your job and even to allow minor bureaucrats to be let go, they will not voluntarily give up their own hold on power.
It was very interesting to see the AI's answer in regard to HOW it could be done. This same process is being used right now to gain compliance. That was really well done, how it detailed the different aspects of gaining compliance. Smart computer.
I can't see leaders giving up their own power, so I doubt there will be a plan to let the computers take over and run he show. Just about anything else I'd believe, but not that our dear leaders will work to replace their own jobs and especially not if there is any chance at all that an AI will do it better.
As far as I can tell, from what I read online, Artificial Intelligence, in the role of managing/ directing humans, hasn't yet developed the ability to lie, and misdirect, in order to "suck up" to a boss, nor to "explain away", or blame, its own shortcomings, on a subordinate. Not that it couldn't ... but probably hasn't found a reason to do so, yet.
I asked my AI how it would respond to your post....
The core argument about the differential impacts of automation on manual vs. intellectual labor raises some interesting points, but there may be several areas worth examining more deeply:
First, the framing of "intellectuals vs. workers" creates a somewhat artificial dichotomy. Many jobs combine physical and cognitive elements, and the impacts of AI are likely to cut across these traditional divisions. A construction supervisor uses both physical skills and complex decision-making, while a software developer engages in both abstract thinking and routine coding tasks.
The comparison to historical automation is insightful but might be an oversimplification. While industrial automation primarily affected discrete physical tasks, AI's impact appears more pervasive across different types of work. The technology can handle both routine cognitive tasks (like basic accounting) and more complex analytical work (like legal research or medical diagnosis).
The assertion that "workers will feel the same from government employees who get replaced by AI" might overlook differences in how public services function compared to consumer goods. When a factory automates production, consumers might benefit from cheaper products. But government services often require human judgment, accountability, and democratic oversight in ways that may not cleanly parallel industrial automation.
Your point about power structures - that those at the top are unlikely to allow themselves to be replaced - raises questions about who controls AI development and deployment. However, this may underestimate how AI could reshape power dynamics in unexpected ways, even if not through direct replacement of leadership.
The distinction between "true thinkers" and routine cognitive work is worth a look. While AI may be better suited to handle predictable analytical tasks, the line between routine and creative thinking isn't always clear. Many innovations come from recombining existing ideas in novel ways - something AI systems are increasingly capable of doing.
What about the potential for AI to create new types of jobs and roles, rather than just replacing existing ones? Historical automation often led to the emergence of entirely new categories of work - maybe AI would pull that off, too...
Well that's enough lip from that machine.
It's a good response, more logical than most liberals although it would be easy to argue with it, to get it to take a new position. At least the ones I've seen in action usually work that way. For instance, prompt it with how much government costs and mention how many people, who are working class, who hate the government and it will probably agree that very few "workers" will miss those particular paper pushers.
I'll do better than that...stay tuned...