[squidbeak]

The elimination of jobs necessarily 'makes a path' to a post-work society. Post-work couldn't exist without it. Beyond that, it isn't in AI companies' power to shape economies and societies for post-work (which is what I assume you're really getting at here). All Altman, Amodei, Hassabis and the others can do is alert policymakers to what's coming, and they're trying pretty hard to do that, aren't they? - often in the teeth of the skepticism we see so much of on this site. Really if policy makers won't look ahead, the AI companies can't be blamed for the bumps we're going hit.

[jplusequalt]

>they're trying pretty hard to do that, aren't they

How so? Throwing out the term "UBI" every once in a while doesn't miraculously make it economically viable.

[squidbeak]

Do you really pay so little attention to the space that you think this is all they do? Almost every public discussion or interview involving these figures turns at some point to society's unpreparedness for what's coming, for instance Amodei's interview last week.

https://www.dwarkesh.com/p/dario-amodei-2

[ahf8Aithaex7Nai]

Yes, these people are publicly warning about the risks of AI. Altman is promoting regulation that clearly favors OpenAI. This is called regulatory capture. It aims to strengthen one's own position. Furthermore, the claim that these companies cannot shape economies is simply false. They decide how quickly they deploy, which industries they automate, whether they cooperate with unions, etc. These are all decisions that shape the economy.

Widespread job losses as a path to post-work are about as plausible as a car accident as a path to bringing a vehicle to a standstill. You would have to be from another planet (or a sociopath) not to understand that this violates boundary conditions that we implicitly want to leave intact.

[ben_w]

> They decide how quickly they deploy, which industries they automate, whether they cooperate with unions, etc. These are all decisions that shape the economy.

They control how quickly they deploy, but I don't see how they have any control over the rest: "which industries they automate" is a function of how well the model has generalised. All the medical information, laws and case histories, all the source code, they're still only "ok"; and how are they, as a model provider in the US, supposed to cooperate (or not) with a trade union in e.g. Brandenburg whose bosses are using their services?

> Widespread job losses as a path to post-work are about as plausible as a car accident as a path to bringing a vehicle to a standstill.

Certainly what I fear.

Any given UBI is only meaningful if it is connected to the source of economic productivity; if a government is offering it, it must control that source; if the source is AI (and robotics), that government must control the AI/robots.

If governments wait until the AI is ready, the companies will have the power to simply say "make me"; if the governments step in before the AI is ready, they may simply find themselves out-competed by businesses in jurisdictions whose governments are less interested in intervention.

And even if a government pulls it off, how does that government remain, long-term, friendly to its own people? Even democracies do not last forever.

[squeefers]

post-work? is this from the same lot who cant work-from-office because theyd have a nervous breakdown? who exactly pays for my existence in this world where i dont have to work?