Or we can just refuse this future and act as a society to prevent it from happening. We absolutely have that power, if we choose to organize and use it.
If we were to consider that, then to what end? If you accept my framing of the long-term implications of LLMs on the industry, then what you're suggesting is effectively that we should deprive society of greater prosperity for the benefit of a small minority. Personally, I'd rather improve democratization of entrepreneurship (among other things) than artificially prop up software engineering salaries.
And let's say the US did all that. What then? We neuter our economy and expect our adversaries to just follow suit? More likely it hobbles our ability to compete and ultimately ushers in the end of American hegemony.
This already exactly the case. AI won't bring jackshit to anyone except those who're already sitting on too much wealth than any human should deserve.
At best, AI will slightly increase average global misery by virtue of producing too much garbage that pollutes the digital landscape.
The industrial revolution didn't bring prosperity to anyone except the capital owners, who forced their employees (physical force) to work many long hours, in gruesome environment, for pathetic wages.
When the Society's Elites promise something, the common man must be wary, those elites didn't reach their spots by being kind.
This is simply not true. Compare life of common man of today, to one from 3 centuries before. Quality of life increased tenfold, medicine, knowledge access, world travelability, life expentancy, political representation etc. Of course capital owners get richer even still, but suggesting we were better of without inudstrail revolution is just disingenous.
Once it exists, anywhere, the job market is toast - banning it in the US just means outsourcing all the economic benefits to China. We have a long history of technological revolutions to demonstrate this: the un-industrialized nations fared a lot worse than the ones at the frontier of technology.
Unindustrialized nations fared worse due to the industrialized ones coming for their resources. I doubt farmer John on Yorkshire gave a shit about what the UK was doing in south Africa or india. Similarly for Farmer Louis in Leon, or Hans in Stutgart. It's all elite dick-measuring contests with the common man as the only loser.
> outsourcing all the economic benefits to China
Hell the US already outsourced all vital indiatries to China without banning shit. My main point is that the common man will not see any benefit from such technological advancement, since the major problem is who's holding the stocks. AI is just another measure of wealth concentration.
As far as the industrial revolution, your take is ahistorical. We're clearly more prosperous now than we were before industrialization. Let's not forget that the pre-industrial American economy relied on literal enslavement of 15 - 20% of the population.
The fact that rich people get richer is exactly the goal of the US' economic system, not an accident. Despite the abolition of slavery, the US remains extremely hostile to the poor. its lower-than-livable wages forcing its people to be more miserable than medieval surfs.
So, no, the industrial revolution did not bring prosperity, what brought prosperity was the blood shed by common men daring to keep a portion of the fruits of their labour. The history of unionization on the US and the plight of miners clearly shows how much prosperity was brought by technological innovation.
For Europe's part, the continent was physically developed over millennia on the backs of imperial slaves and feudal serfs, while its wealth was the product of atrocities comparable to those of the US. They certainly don't get a pass here.
If we're looking to the past for guidance, the historical precedent is clear: greater efficiency increases prosperity, and greater prosperity increases liberty. The first industrial revolution heralded the end of actual slavery; the AI industrial revolution could herald the end of "wage slavery". If some rich people happen to get richer at the same time, I say good for them. Rather than cutting off our nose to spite our face, we should look at concepts like UBI or universal educational stipends as an ultimate offramp from mandatory employment.