[jacquesm]

> I don't think we've had tech like this that can argued as dangerous on both sides of the aisle simultaneously.

On the contrary, all tech is like this. It is just the first time that the knowledge workers producing the tech are directly affected so they see first hand the effects of their labor. That really is the only thing that is different.

[johnnyanmac]

I really hate this dismissal of "well it's affecting YOU now so now it's an issue". I'm not just "knowledge worker" and have grown up seeing the dangers of the internet, social media, invasion of privacy, and radicalization through seemingly benign channels. I've witnessed wars, unrest, and oppressions throughout all stages of my life.

So let's not just handwave it as "nothing special" and actually demonstrate why this isn't special. Most other forms of technological progress have shown obvious benefits to producers and consumers. Someone is always harmed in the short term, yes. But society's given them ways to either retire or seek new work if needed. I'm not seeing that here.

[jacquesm]

> I really hate this dismissal of "well it's affecting YOU now so now it's an issue". I'm not just "knowledge worker" and have grown up seeing the dangers of the internet, social media, invasion of privacy, and radicalization through seemingly benign channels. I've witnessed wars, unrest, and oppressions throughout all stages of my life.

Sorry, but my comment wasn't about you in particular. It was about the tech domain in general. I know absolutely nothing about you so I would not presume to make any statements about you in that sense.

> But society's given them ways to either retire or seek new work if needed. I'm not seeing that here.

No, not really. For the most part they became destitute and at some point they died.

What you are not seeing is that this is the end stage of technological progress, the point at which suddenly a large fraction of the people is superfluous to the people in charge. Historically such excess has been dealt with by wars.

[johnnyanmac]

>For the most part they became destitute and at some point they died

Having opportunity doesn't mean they will seize it. I will concede that if you are disrupted and in your 50's (not old enough to retire, and where it becomes difficult to be re-hired unless you're management) you get hit especially hard.

But it's hard to see the current landscape of jobs now and suggest that boomers/older GenX had nothing to fall back on when these things happen. These generations chided millennials and Gen Z for being "too proud to work a grill". Nowadays you're not even getting an interview at McDonald's after submitting hundreds of applications. That's not an environment that let's you "bounce back" after a setback.

>Historically such excess has been dealt with by wars.

Indeed. We seem to be approaching that point, and it's already broken out in several places. When all other channels are exhausted, humans simply seek to overthrow the ones orchestrating their oppression.

In this case that isn't AI. At least not yet. But it's a symptom of how they've done this.

[jacquesm]

> Having opportunity doesn't mean they will seize it.

Well, in that sense everybody has opportunity. But I know quite a few people who definitely would not survive their line of employment shutting down. A lot of them have invested decades in their careers and have life complications, responsibilities and expenses that stop them from simply 'seizing opportunity'. For them it would be the end of the line, hopefully social security would catch them but if not then I have no idea how they would make it.

[johnnyanmac]

Generally speaking, yes. I do understand not everyone has the opportunities for life circumstances beyond their control. So I don't want to belittle that.

But speaking in macroeconomics, most people have the capacity to readjust if needed. I had to do so these last few years (and yes, am thankful I am "able bodied" and have a family/friend network to help me out when at my lowest points). And the market really sucks, but I eventually found some things. Some related to my career, some not.

But I'm 30. In the worst worst cases, I have time and energy to pivot. The opportunities out there are dreadful all around, though.

[jacquesm]

> most people have the capacity to readjust if needed

I am not so sure about that. I know I can. But I also know that I'm pretty privileged, where most people are not.