The majority of U.S. adults don’t believe the benefits of artificial intelligence outweigh the risks, according to a new Mitre-Harris Poll released Tuesday.

  • Billiam@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Just spitballing here, and this may be a bit of pie-in-the-sky thinking, but ultimately I think this is what might push the US into socialized healthcare and/or UBI. Increasing automation won’t reduce population- and as more workers are out of work due to automation, they’ll have more time and motivation to do things like protest.

    • Khotetsu@lib.lgbt
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The US economy literally depends on 3-4% of the workforce being so desperate for work that they’ll take any job, regardless of how awful the pay is. They said this during the recent labor shortage, citing how this is used to keep wages down and how it’s a “bad thing” that almost 100% of the workforce was employed because it meant people could pick and choose rather than just take the first offer they get, thus causing wages to increase.

      Poverty and homelessness are a feature, not a bug.

      • Billiam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, but for capitalism it’s a delicate balance- too many job openings gives labor more power, but too few job openings gives people reason to challenge the status quo. That 3-4% may be enough for the capitalists, but what happens when 15-20% of your workforce are unemployed because of automation? That’s when civil unrest happens.

        Remember that the most progressive Presidential administration in US history, FDR, happened right after the gilded age and roaring 20’s crashed the economy. When 25% of Americans were out of work during the Great Depression, social programs suddenly looked much more preferable than food riots. And the wealth disparity now is even greater, relatively, than it was back then.

        • Khotetsu@lib.lgbt
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Very true, but it’s precisely that wealth disparity that concerns me. I’ve seen the current US wealth disparity described as being on par with the disparity in France just before the French Revolution happened, where the cost of a loaf of bread had soared to more than the average worker made in a day. I worry that the more than half a century of anti-union propaganda and “get what I need and screw everybody else” attitude has beaten down the general public enough that there simply won’t be enough of a unified effort to enact meaningful change. I worry about how bad things will have to get before it’s too much. How many families will never recover.

          But these are also very different times compared to the 1920s in that we’ve been riding on the coattails of the post WW2 economic boom for almost 70 years, and as that continues to slow down we might see some actual pushback. We already have, with every generation being more progressive than the last.

          But I still can’t help but worry.

      • rambaroo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yep. I stopped listening to Marketplace on NPR because the last time I listened they were echoing this exact sentiment. Somehow it’s a good thing that wages aren’t keeping up with inflation. Fuck NPR.

    • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Seems more likely that they’ll have more time not in the sense of having easier jobs but by being laid off and having to fight for their livelihood. In the corporate-driven society that we live today, it’s unlikely that the benefits of new advancements will be spontaneously shared.

      • Billiam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Seems more likely that they’ll have more time not in the sense of having easier jobs but by being laid off and having to fight for their livelihood.

        This is exactly what I meant.

        People who have to fight for subsistence won’t easily revolt, because they’re too busy trying to survive.

        People who are unemployed have nothing to lose by not revolting. And the more automation there is, the more unemployed people there will be.

        • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          So we see it the same way, but I don’t feel much optimistic about it because it’s going to get much worse before it might get better. All the suffering and struggle that it will take to reform society will be ugly.

          • Billiam@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, I think it will get worse before it gets better. As long as there is a sociopathic desire to hoard wealth, and no fucks given to our fellow humans, this is how it will be. Capitalism causes these issues, and so capitalism can’t fix them.