[jillesvangurp]

> Small sidenote: calling your own view 'realistic' might put some people off. It sort of implies other opinions are not, you know?

I'm just countering the cynical view here; which at least puts me off. Anyway, there's always somebody that is going to disagree. To me the cynical view is historically always there and usually wrong.

I don't actually agree that AI is causing any perceived worker injustice. The US is a bit special because it generally seems be a bit different than the rest of the world in terms of a lack of worker protections. Like getting decent health insurance, job protections, and not being forced to work crazy hours just to get slightly over the poverty line. Whether you agree with that or not, a lot of that predates the whole "AI is bad" debate and is simply the result of decades long policy. Rolling back some of that or changing those policies is a different topic. IMHO that would be a good thing regardless of AI or any other transformative economic effects of other innovations.

And to counter that, I've mostly lived in places where things arguably are not that bad. People get decent insurance. They don't work crazy hours. And they mostly get paid fair wages for what they do. There are some exceptions to that of course. But people are doing pretty OK and I don't think that will change because of AI. I just don't see the need for a lot of pre-emptive measures here.

Globally, we have more people than ever and they are wealthier and more healthy than ever. Sure, there are some pretty grim outliers but that's mostly in places with despotic regimes and really crappy economies. That too is not caused or made much worse by AI.

[beepbooptheory]

The opposite of a cynical view is an optimistic one, not a realistic one. Optimism like yours has been as wrong as cynicism throughout history, and its unrealistic to believe otherwise.