[thomascgalvin]

You're asking a question that only applies to rational actors.

Corporations exist for one purpose: to get as much money as possible. Side concerns, which can range from "not destroying the environment" or "not destroying the economy," are objectively not their goal, nor do they consider them their responsibility. Those are things "someone else" should worry about.

AI destroying all jobs is similar to a nuclear arms race; these companies don't want to eliminate everyone's ability to buy things, but they don't want to be the only entity without that ability, so ...

[bluecheese452]

That is mostly true but a bit of a simplification. They exist to do what the people who have power want them to do which is not always strictly profit maximization.

A ceo may realize rto will decrease profits but do it anyway because it increases the power delta between him and the workers.

[nervousvarun]

"not always strictly profit maximization."

Maybe in the short-term but public companies with shareholders won't allow this in any sort of long-term way right?

[bluecheese452]

Not allow it? They insist upon it!

The controlling votes are all part of the same social class. They would gladly give up a small amount of profit to keep the distance between them and the workers as large as possible.

[nervousvarun]

To the extent it doesn't negatively impact the stock price sure but you would agree the CEO and any sort of power-trip they have is ultimately beholden to that right?

[bluecheese452]

If he goes against what they want absolutely. If he introduced a 4 day work week for example he would be in big trouble.