People were worried about losing their jobs back when computers first became widespread too, but actual statistical evidence suggests that the amount of jobs available actually rose.
With AI, though, I think we have good reason to believe that the change would be much more sudden, and much more widespread. You can freeze wages and scalp every bit of productivity increase for yourself and shareholders as a corporate owner and get away with it for 30+ years (as has been done). But if even, say, 15% of the total workforce were laid off in the first year... things would change rapidly. It would be quickly realized that the displaced employees could easily simply get an AI for themselves, and price the ex-employer out of business rapidly. Nothing motivates like fear of starvation. Computers were only able to result in the problems we're facing today because it was a slow constriction of suffocation, cost of living gradually chipping away at the frozen median wage, rather than a brick to the back of the head as the introduction of generalized AI would be.
Im all for decentralization of manufacturing and development in software. But realistically, money isnt going anywhere and far scarier things may occur than an AI takeover
I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter who winds up running the AI, the AI is still doing all the work many people used to do, all of those people are still out of work, even if some of them displaced the old boss running lower overhead, most will still be unemployed due to the collapse of the demand for human labor. Increased productivity in the AI age means human jobs lost with no replacements coming.
This hasn't worked anywhere nearly that well in the past, why should it work any better in the future?
The reason it can't is that we can't both all use new technologies _and_ expect that we can make a comfortable living out of it. The reason is good old supply and demand. If everyone can use a technology, then the ability to use it is not something you can sell very highly.
Take writing for example. Back in the time of the pharaohs, priests were the only ones who knew writing and reading and they had immense power as a result. Today, knowing how to read and write is more of a prerequisite to be able to find work, not a skill you can sell in and of itself.
Also, it happens that of all the people I know who work with computers, I can't think of anyone, off the top of my head, who switched from a different kind of job. I'm sure there are some, but they'll be few and far between. For most people, losing their job to a computer means just that: that they lose their job. To a computer.
And think of all the McJobs that keep unemployment low in most western economies: flipping burgers, stacking shelves, cold-calling, part-time stuff. _That_ is the kind of job most people do in the information age.
>> their ex-employer is a monolith
Aye, a monolith with the capital to buy them out of the market, if they look even remotely threatening, just to be sure. Then that same boss can take the tech they bought for a tiny cost (to them), encase it in patents and copyrights and leave it to rot where nobody can get big ideas about using it to give power to the people and all that.
What mystifies me is why Netflix DVD processing centers have human beings in them. From their initial conception they could have been almost totally unmanned. No idea why they weren't. Maybe it would have actually had significant negative social response? I know that in my state, an automobile manufacturer was going to open a plant, but once the politicians found out that the plant was going to be heavily automated and provide 300 rather than 4000 jobs, all tax breaks were rescinded so they went elsewhere.
Watch an episode of "How It's Made" or similar, and note the places where an assembly line includes a human step. Those steps often involve fine adaptable manipulation (e.g. of inconsistently placed items), pattern recognition, or similar.
In general, a machine usually could handle that manufacturing step just as well if not better, but doing so would incur the development costs and construction of a highly specialized machine, plus maintenance. The hourly cost of a human employee may well work out cheaper, either in the short term or potentially even in the long run.
And that leaves aside other potential value of employing humans in those roles, including goodwill/PR/perception. An apparent cost savings from automation will quickly evaporate if the company finds itself on the evening news. That holds doubly true if replacing an existing human role with automation.
I protest your subtle redefinition of what "edible" means :P
Every economist and their dog agrees that Finland should lower cost of employing so we could get out of seven year long downturn. But unions have choke hold of this country. My opinion is that unions are OK, but you have to regulate against monopolistic developments. Just like with private companies. Currently there is single union guy who can shut down all Finnish exports for a week.
I certainly can't say that the pessimists are correct, but I also can't say with certainty that they're incorrect. I do think it's silly to imagine that the only configuration for intelligence requires human-grade empathy, or that all sorts of differently-intelligent systems well below the complexity of the human brain, couldn't be lethal.
https://intelligence.org/ai-foom-debate/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursive_self-improvement