Look at how the billionaires are talking about AI: Their clear, unambiguous goal is basically to replace all white collar "knowledge" jobs. And there's currently nothing regulatory that's stopping them--they just need to wait for the state of the art to improve. Once AI is "good enough" if it ever is, they won't even think twice about 45% unemployment. What are we unemployed workers going to do about it? There's no effective labor organization left. Workers have basically no political power or seat at the table. We're not going to get violent--the police/military are already owned by the billionaire class. We're just going to eventually become economically irrelevant and die off.

> We're just going to eventually become economically irrelevant and die off.

As harsh it may sound, it seems rather likely to me. It is not like s/w engineers have helped struggling workers in other sectors other than sanctimonious "Learn to code" advice. So software folks can't expect any solidarity or help from others.

The fundamental issue isn't unemployment due to automation, but the fact that society cannot benefit from unemployment.

It should be something for us to celebrate, because it means greater freedom for humans to pursue something else rather than spending time doing drudgery.

Put it another way, the issue is that resources are not shared more equitably. This is especially egregious considering that LLMs are trained on all human knowledge. We've all been contributing to this enterprise, and what we may end up getting in return is unemployment.

45% of folks sitting on their hands are going to have the free time to talk, and this group of people are skilled at organization. Are you planning on throwing your hands up and passively accepting whatever comes your way?

And at least in the US they have >45% of all the small arms weaponry. There is no bunker strong enough nor private army big enough if 100M people come for you.

They're probably be betting that the technology they will need to defend their bunkers, think autonomous kill-bots or whatever, will emerge before people start to riot.

Or they're planning to build an Elysium-like colony in the ocean or space, to keep the billionaire class far from danger.

I get that it is popular to hate billionaires these days, but realistically, they did not get to be billionaires by being stupid. It runs directly counter to their own interests to induce anything like 45% unemployment. They will get poorer, the world they live in right along with the rest of us will get noticeably shittier, etc.

More likely they figure out what to do with a bunch of idle talent. Or the coming generation of trillionaires will.

"Poorer?" That implies they still rely on money. But money is just a form of fiat power. The billionaires/trillionaires will not much need fiat currency or fiat power, because they're building real power.. by extension, they won't really need to worry very much about the rest of us, either..

It's important (and calming) to understand that since the Industrial Revolution started ~250 years ago, we've automated away most jobs several times over, while employment levels have stayed pretty constant.

"Automating half the jobs" is the same as "double productivity per worker".

When the doubling happens in 5 years rather than 50, it might be more disruptive, but I'm convinced we're on the verge of huge improvements in human standard of living!

What in the current state of world affairs outside of IT do you think is indicative of that potential for huge improvements in human standard of living?

It's what I mentioned:

If we double productivity per worker, we have twice as much wealth on average.

I know there are angry people convinced that this will all be consumed by billionaires and jews, but historically that is not at all the track record of the last 250 years, and I expect that to continue.

>If we double productivity per worker, we have twice as much wealth on average.

That's not true. There are other factors at play such as demand.

If we make the average IT worker twice as productive, that doesn't mean now every IT worker is being paid twice as much, because most users aren't going to care if there are twice as many options on the app store, or twice as many bug fixes per release.

Consumption in a society will always be roughly equal to production.

There are differences due to import/export balance, investments, government borrowing etc, but as a first approximation, if GDP increases by 10%, consumption will rise by a similar amount.

About your IT worker example: Let's say s/he produces $150k/year in value and is paid $140k. If AI makes them produce $300k of value, they may not automatically get a raise. But it becomes very attractive for another employer to hire them for $200k or $250k, or even $280k.

In the medium/long term, I don't see why wages would keep proportional to produced value.

If you are going to bring up history you should really look into what it took to redistribute wealth from oligarchs in the past.

The fact that oligarchy now has more resources than ever in the history of humankind, a means to mass surveillance and generating mass propaganda, those wealth redistributions are looking much MUCH harder to accomplish.

Yea, historically it will inevitably happen. Realistically it will be after the new version of fuedalism and dark ages. So strap in for the next 400 years aren’t looking too good