That's putting it mildly, IMO.

An AI bailout would be a poison pill that would electorally doom whichever party was behind it for decades.

The scabs who don't strike?

I'm pro-union and unlike the person you are responding to I'm not sure things are "dead in the water", but I do think software developers had a much better leg to stand on to push for unionization a few years ago than they have now (and, probably, going forward).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio...

IMO the actual prescient call he made early on is to hang on to 60% of the total voting power of the company. I have to imagine there are several points where he'd have been pushed out quite a while ago if he hadn't have done that.

Not that I've known a ton of people who work for local police departments, but the majority of the ones I have known are exactly the type of people who are likely to partake in illegal residential fireworks around the 4th of July.

Through the evil power of socialism!! (/s)

Doubtful.

You'll be expected to produce much more, you aren't likely to see raises commensurate with the increased productivity, and the AI tide is still rising and will likely eventually put downward pressure on your pay at an increasing rate.

Did the amount of money you or your employer make rise by anywhere near 100% as well?

Because that is really the primary question behind articles like this focusing on the economic benefits.

To prove the article wrong even within the context of AI coding (which wasnt the focus of the article) you would have to present proof that creating these new AI apps resulted in you making lots of new money.

Sounds fantastic(al).

> The alternative is a small subset of an elite inherit the world's wealth, create a prison society of surveillance robots that keep the permanent underclass at bay with video games, tiktoks, and pills.

I have to be honest with you, I'm not sure how anyone could be paying any attention at all to our current socioeconomic reality* and believe that the first alternative is likely to be the way this all goes (unless the issue is eventually forced through a massive, generational, bloody revolt).

(* I am admittedly being US-biased here, some other countries may fare much better)

Please point me to what I asked for, an example of what this magical new job actually looks like. What does a person with that job do on a day to day basis, in very broad terms. I didn't spot anything like this in the paper.

> And they even close the section by acknowledging that “this time it’s different” might actually be true with AI, and that we simply don’t have enough data to say for sure!

The paper is basically a round-up of three different viewpoints. One of them (Acemoglu) I'm much more in agreement with than the others, and its his contributions you are referencing above.

The quote I pulled came from Briggs. He's the one I want more information from on what these jobs will look like and in what ways these new jobs are safe from AI displacement when the lost jobs they replace are not.

Still waiting for anyone with this viewpoint to offer a single educated guess at what any of these created jobs might look like even in very broad terms.

All I ever see is basically a religious belief that surely something will arise.

I get that previous automation waves have lead to new jobs in the past, but automating knowledge and intelligence is just fundamentally a different thing than anything we have automated in the past and what exactly stops AI from taking those new jobs too as soon as the need for them is recognized?

Not all of them, some of them have just been pushed out of the workforce unwillingly due to ageism while still financially insecure.

I'm all about people being angry with the current situation and pushing for class war, but blanket assumptions about any demographic, including those of a certain age, is not helpful.

If language is required for thinking and conscious experience how did we manage to develop language in the first place.

Nothing under the sun is new, but we do currently live in a time with unprecedented levels of open corruption where nobody seems to feel the slightest amount of guilt for clearly immoral behavior as long as they get away with it.

And even in cases where what you do is explicitly illegal legal enforcement is largely contingent on whether or not whatever corrupt thing you did made you rich enough to pay the Get Out of Jail tax.

Then the streaming services are failing to punish their ad providers, so they still have culpability.

Probably good advice (for everyone in fintech, not just programmers) considering the absolute disaster that happened at Synapse. Kind of wild nobody has gone to jail for that.

Non-Disclosure agreements to protect a company's legitimate business and trade secrets aren't nefarious.

But I'd argue that Non-Disparagement agreements or non-disparagement clauses that block disclosure of inappropriate personal behavior is, in fact, nefarious.

Maybe, maybe not. Tech stocks are mostly vibes-based now, reality isn't really a concern for them.