Once again Ted Chiang has it exactly right. The immediate danger from #AI is not that it will become sentient and do whatever it wants. The danger is that it will do what it’s being designed to do: help rich corporations destroy the working class in pursuit of ever-greater profits and thus concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands.

https://www.newyorker.com/science/annals-of-artificial-intelligence/will-ai-become-the-new-mckinsey

@JamesGleick Sorry, Ted Chiang has it completely wrong. It would be wonderful if AI led to a huge surge in productivity -- we need not worry about inflation for many decades -- but little reason to believe that will be the case. But,l this is the sort of stuff that excites New Yorker readers even if it has no basis in reality.
@DeanBaker13
But isn't the whole goal of this hypothetical surge in productivity that the owners will no longer have to pay any workers?
@JamesGleick
@BrentInMasto @JamesGleick sure, capitalists ALWAYS want to pay their workers as little as possible. That is a given. The question is whether AI is some huge qualitative breakthrough, which will hugely increase productivity growth. I have been hearing this claim literally for decades, and we have not seen it yet. Maybe the techno-optimists will be right this time, but they have a hell of a track record of being wrong.
@BrentInMasto @JamesGleick I'll also add that our period of most rapid productivity growth was 1947-73, which was a period of rapid real wage growth and declining inequality.
@DeanBaker13
Ah, that great post war expansion, strong unions and the GI bill growing the middle class and when CEOs still had a sense of obligation to society. Plenty of other problems then, just as now, but at least the working people were getting ahead.
P.S. - One might also add that the way that growth happened did a lot to bring us to the current climate cusp.
@JamesGleick