I don't care whether I'm writing code or reviewing LLM generated stuff, but the prospect of losing my job and having to survive on welfare for the rest of my life isn't nice.
What seems to happen though is it always gets pulled into a discussion of "But they can't X" or "but ma taste!" or the old generic canard "can't replicate what's not in the training data"
All I want is for people to see that yes, this is happening, accept it, then figure out what a good response would be to it. Instead we get everything from stochastic parrot parrots to "Dario is just marketing when he tries to warn us" to the old an thoughtless "But if you think it's bad, why are you doing it?"
Please.
Change doesn't happen until we are at the absolute brink of IMMEDIATE catastrophe.
Why? Why are jobs necessary? Who needs to have them? Should we pay people to be stopgaps/just in case jobs in case the machine fails (probably?) -- who organizes that? Do we have a human economy and AI economy? How to keep them decoupled? Does this mean stamping provenance (who made what onto what?) should be a core of the future? Right now? What does that look like? Are there other things we can do to ensure we get the Banks future and not a shittier one? Is the Banks future a good one? Is disempowerment a real concern? If so what do we do about it? Human reserves? Zoos?
I do not have answers, but I know the questions are vastly more interesting than "what job will the AI not be able to do" wtf PLEASE
The problem is that income tax by workers is by far the largest contribution to the total tax intake of any country. To match the missing tax from replaced workers (including the highest paid) in the US, you'd have to increase tax on corporations by 3-4x, which would kill many businesses. On top of that you'd have far more people taking from the tax pot via welfare.
In the worse case scenario, mass replacement of workers by AI would essentially amount to the destruction of the economy.