Forget the AI job apocalypse. AI’s real threat is worker control and surveillance
Crossposted from reddthat.com/post/65500442
Forget the AI job apocalypse. AI’s real threat is worker control and surveillance
A new divide is emerging: between workers who use AI at work and those who are managed by itGuardian staff reporter (The Guardian)
9point6
in reply to RockBottom • • •I mean yes, but also no
The job apocalypse is absolutely not something to forget.
It's a much greater threat given it will require us to change the world economic system to one that doesn't require everyone to have a job to survive. The alternative? Everyone in slums and poverty.
The media will be desperate to point you to anything other than that because it's an existential threat to their owners.
A little surprising to see this from the Guardian given they have a different ownership model to most outlets, but I guess it's a good reminder that all media will defend money if push comes to shove
maegul (he/they)
in reply to 9point6 • • •I think the threat is greater still.
Without jobs, and living off of whatever state based support, what leverage will the jobless have in society? How easy will it be to simply dismiss and ignore this economically disenfranchised cohort? To forcefully abuse them if it’s politically convenient? To completely prevent them from moving economic class. It certainly won’t be a clean jump to Star Trek “utopia”.
And beyond that of course are AI apocalypse scenarios. With machines increasingly running the world, what leverage will humanity have over it?
9point6
in reply to maegul (he/they) • • •TBF that's kinda what I meant by poverty and slums, that's not the outcome of a demographic that has any semblance of power in their political/economic system.
It comes down to ownership as it always has. If the thing taking all the jobs is owned by a handful of people, it will only benefit them ultimately. If it's owned by the many, the outcome for the many is improved.
Americans need to quickly get over a lot of brainwashing for us to stand a chance of the good end though
RockBottom
in reply to 9point6 • • •ghost_laptop
in reply to 9point6 • • •warmaster
in reply to 9point6 • • •kibiz0r
in reply to RockBottom • • •Catching up to analysis from four years ago, I see.
Revenge of the Chickenized Reverse-Centaurs
Revenge of the Chickenized Reverse-Centaurs – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow
pluralistic.netPierceTheBubble
in reply to RockBottom • • •I hope this discussion will gain some more mainstream traction, because it's the more immediate threat or practice, while not nearly being addressed sufficiently. The only thing I fundamentally disagree with, is the perceived notion, that the lack of transparency is the problem. The fact that these systems are in place is the problem: stop collecting excessive personal data on your workers (which depend on their jobs for an income), and all the problems magically disappear; without ambiguity.
I'm of the opinion that "private" property, which structurally invites the public (including workers), shouldn't classify as "private" property, and be subject to much stricter regulations on deployment of surveillance systems. It's not ethically justifiable, for people to be forced, to subject themselves to surveillance, simply to be able to make a living and buy food for themselves. Advances in technology have made it so, that surveillance tech is no longer compatible with modern society: supervisors (including law-enforcement) got to greedy, and now it's (hopefully) coming t
... Show more...I hope this discussion will gain some more mainstream traction, because it's the more immediate threat or practice, while not nearly being addressed sufficiently. The only thing I fundamentally disagree with, is the perceived notion, that the lack of transparency is the problem. The fact that these systems are in place is the problem: stop collecting excessive personal data on your workers (which depend on their jobs for an income), and all the problems magically disappear; without ambiguity.
I'm of the opinion that "private" property, which structurally invites the public (including workers), shouldn't classify as "private" property, and be subject to much stricter regulations on deployment of surveillance systems. It's not ethically justifiable, for people to be forced, to subject themselves to surveillance, simply to be able to make a living and buy food for themselves. Advances in technology have made it so, that surveillance tech is no longer compatible with modern society: supervisors (including law-enforcement) got to greedy, and now it's (hopefully) coming to bite them in the ass.
nosuchanon
in reply to RockBottom • • •