Right, the AI companies don’t even try to pretend it’s good for the average person.
The message could be “we’ll all do more by working less.” Instead it’s, “some people will lose their jobs while everyone else works the same amount or more”
The message could be “we’ll all do more by working less.” Instead it’s, “some people will lose their jobs while everyone else works the same amount or more”
Any pay rises have been more of a side effect in the past of complexity and therefore needing more skilled labor to say operate a bulldozer or backhoe than it does for any individual with a shovel. Productivity may boost the economic ceiling of 'how much they can pay before they literally start losing money' but more assembly lines didn't mean big pay raises. A backhoe didn't mean that ditch diggers suddenly got paid 50 to 100 times what they were previously from other's expenditures because they could dig that much more. And that is before the back-and-forth of induced demand and supply vs demand causing the price of the labor to drop with more efficiency.
AI's whole thing is to provide for easier operation and trying to deskill the operations. (Key word: trying, currently knowing what the hell you are doing is essential for filtering good outputs from bad).
It remains to be seen if LLMs will be used in this way, but the messaging so far (including your post, the one I'm replying to) suggests that the elites' inclination is exactly that: more profit, more control, more power now for elites, temporary (possibly years, maybe as long a generation or three) but real suffering for many of the rest, and a steady state at the end of the transition where they are still in charge, much richer, and maybe also everyone else is better off (if they can't capture the gains completely for themselves).