[xg15]

I think the lifelong dream of many businesspeople is to create the perfect "cog in the machine" or ideally run a business without workers at all. (Tony Stark, Elon Musk's role model, is a good example of that. As far as the movies are concerned, he builds all his most important inventions himself, or with the help of AI, no workers involved)

Independent of what AI can do today, I suspect this was a reason why so many resources were poured into its development in the first place. Because this was the ultimate vision behind it.

[eru]

You say it like it's a bad thing.

[xg15]

I do believe it's a bad thing, for a number of general reasons. But as far as the US specifically is concerned, I think a society can pick one out of the following two:

(1) Define people's worth through labour.

(2) See labour as a cost center that should be eliminated wherever possible.

US politicians and technologists are trying to have it both ways: Oppose a social safety net out of principle as to "not encourage leechers", forcing people to work, but at the same time seek to reduce the opportunities for work as much as possible. AI is the latest and potentially most far-reaching implementation of that.

This is asking for trouble.

[eru]

The US spends more per capita on their social safety net than eg France does.

[npodbielski]

Of course, humans are social beings if technology 'allows' you to be antisocial, are you still being human?

[eru]

Providing value for your fellow humans (= customers) while economising on scarce resources like human labour is anti-social?