There's a particularly evocative line this reminds me of in Mississippi, Goddamn.
> Don't tell me, I tell you
> Me and my people just about due
> I've been there so I know
> They keep on saying "Go slow"
I disagree that "there is a ceiling on how much progress that can be made in one era" and I vehemently disagree with the implication that the government should determine how much progress is allowed.
from MLK Jr. of course, while he was locked up in a jail in Birmingham for protesting.
MLK Jr. is not saying there are no reasonable limits on methods of direct action. He is not saying that every goal is justified by any means.
And there are no limits on the methods of direct action, certainly none dictated by the oppressors. If you believe otherwise, I will remind you of the pride Americans take in the violent revolution that founded their nation, and why the Second Amendment exists.
You cannot found a nation on the premise that political violence is necessary for a free state and then claim that there are limits to what those seeking freedom can do to achieve it. These are the rules to America's game.
It is legitimate to apply scrutiny to what causes are just, and what is a legitimate use of violence.
The current system is based on capitalists employing workers. But with AI there will not be a need to employ workers. Goods and services can be provided without human labor. From the worker's perspective, currently they perform a job and get money they buy the things they need. The question is then, if the job disappears how will they aquire the things they need? Basic income? Charity? We shall see.
It's odd to me that the current thought is that this idea is lost on them because they want nothing more than to get rid of workers? They want more productivity from their workers for the same or slightly less cost, which they are hoping AI can squeeze out of them. Eliminate too many workers and you have to pay the ones left more as they are now specialist, and productivity gains from AI only brings production back to when they had more workers without AI and paying less for them bringing it to about even. They gain by keeping around the same amount of workers (maybe a few less--that amount to a rounding error, but not the doom being predicted), at their current job title paying the same scraps and using AI to get more productivity out of them. And in which workers will now turn around and spend their check buying said goods at a higher cost than they were paid to make them.
Unless UBI becomes a thing, capitalists know they need workers who will buy their goods and services.
Would still need to produce goods for the shareholders.
I'm seeing a lot of people yelling that what's coming after is a technologically advanced form of feudalism. It doesn't seem like that much of a question.