My Musings

Category: Sociology

  • On AI and Automation

    Introduction

    Throughout history, technological advancements have changed the way we work. From the Industrial Revolution to the rise of the internet, new technologies have disrupted industries, eliminated jobs, and, in some cases, created new ones. However, the rapid rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and automation is different. Unlike past innovations that primarily replaced manual labor, AI is now replacing cognitive jobs as well. The looming question is: if AI and robots can do everything, what happens to the billions of people who rely on jobs for survival?

    This article explores the reality of AI-driven job displacement, the myths surrounding technological job creation, and the potential economic and societal consequences of widespread automation. More importantly, it examines whether our current economic system can survive this shift or if we need a radical new approach to avoid catastrophe.

    The Myth: “AI Will Create More Jobs Than It Destroys”

    Tech optimists often argue that AI will follow the pattern of previous technological shifts by creating more jobs than it eliminates. This belief is based on historical precedents, such as:

    • The Industrial Revolution, which replaced artisans and craftsmen with factories but created new factory jobs.
    • The Dotcom Boom, which eliminated many traditional retail and media jobs but created an entirely new industry centered around the internet.
    • The rise of automation in manufacturing, which displaced assembly line workers but generated jobs in tech-driven fields.

    However, historical data suggests that the idea of net job creation is not universally true. While some individuals and industries benefit from new technologies, many displaced workers never recover their lost earning potential. For example:

    • The Internet wiped out millions of jobs in print media, retail, and clerical work. Many affected workers never transitioned to high-paying tech careers.
    • Automation in manufacturing led to mass layoffs, with many workers ending up in lower-paying service jobs. The idea that laid-off factory workers became programmers or engineers is largely a myth.
    • The rise of mechanization in mining eliminated jobs without creating equivalent replacements. Many former miners struggled to find stable, well-paying work afterward.

    The key issue is that the jobs created by new technology often require entirely different skill sets. A coal miner, for example, cannot simply transition to a software engineering role. This leaves a vast portion of the population struggling to adapt, leading to permanent unemployment or underemployment.

    The AI Disruption: Why This Time is Different

    Unlike previous technological revolutions that primarily affected manual laborers, AI is eliminating both physical and cognitive jobs simultaneously. Jobs once thought to be safe—such as legal research, customer service, journalism, and even software development—are now under threat. Consider the following examples:

    • AI-generated content can write news articles, reports, and even fiction, reducing the need for human journalists and writers.
    • Chatbots and AI-powered customer service are replacing human support agents at an alarming rate.
    • AI-driven medical diagnosis systems are showing accuracy rates comparable to or better than human doctors, potentially reducing the need for radiologists and other specialists.
    • AI coding assistants like GitHub Copilot are streamlining software development, raising concerns that even programmers could face job losses.

    With each passing year, AI improves at performing complex tasks that were once considered impossible for machines. If this trend continues, the number of jobs AI destroys will far outweigh the number of jobs it creates.

    The Economic Paradox: Who Buys AI-Generated Goods?

    One of the biggest flaws in the AI-driven economy is a fundamental economic paradox: if AI replaces most jobs, who will have the money to buy AI-generated products and services?

    In today’s economic system, workers earn wages, which they use to buy goods and services. Companies, in turn, use those profits to pay workers. If AI takes over all jobs, this cycle is broken. Consider the following scenarios:

    1. A Few Billionaires Own AI, While the Majority Live in Poverty
      • A small elite controls all AI-driven enterprises and hoards most of the wealth.
      • The vast majority of people are unemployed or underemployed, leading to extreme inequality.
      • Economic collapse follows as there are no consumers left to sustain the system.
    2. AI Companies Sell to AI Companies: A Useless Economy
      • If AI is both the producer and consumer, human economic participation becomes irrelevant.
      • AI-generated companies trade with each other, but this serves no meaningful purpose for society.
      • This scenario leads to a collapse of human-centric economies, making money and traditional economic systems obsolete.
    3. A Utopian AI-Driven Economy?
      • Some argue that AI could create a post-scarcity society where goods and services are freely available.
      • However, history shows that powerful elites do not willingly give up control of resources.
      • Unless AI-driven wealth is redistributed, this vision remains unrealistic.

    Why Universal Basic Income (UBI) Won’t Work

    One proposed solution to AI-driven job losses is Universal Basic Income (UBI), where the government provides every citizen with a fixed income. While this idea sounds appealing, it has several critical flaws:

    1. Governments Are Inefficient and Corrupt
      • Many governments already struggle to provide unemployment benefits, healthcare, and pensions.
      • Corruption and bureaucratic inefficiency make large-scale wealth redistribution difficult.
    2. Where Will the Money Come From?
      • If AI replaces most workers, traditional income tax revenue will disappear.
      • Some propose taxing AI companies, but corporations always find ways to avoid taxes.
    3. Inflation and Devaluation
      • If governments print money to fund UBI, inflation could render the payments meaningless.
      • Without economic productivity from human workers, the value of currency could collapse.

    Because of these challenges, UBI alone is not a sustainable solution to AI-driven unemployment.

    The Only Viable Solution: Redistributing AI Wealth

    If AI eliminates most jobs, the only way to prevent societal collapse is ensuring that AI-driven wealth is distributed fairly. Here are some potential approaches:

    1. AI-Generated Profits as Dividends for All Citizens
      • Instead of letting a few corporations hoard AI wealth, profits could be distributed as dividends to everyone.
      • This would allow people to sustain themselves even without traditional jobs.
    2. Cooperative AI Ownership Models
      • Workers could collectively own AI-driven companies, ensuring that AI-generated wealth benefits all employees.
    3. Strict AI Monopolization Laws
      • Governments could regulate AI ownership to prevent a small elite from controlling all economic power.
      • AI technology could be nationalized to ensure fair distribution of its benefits.

    Conclusion: A Crossroads for Humanity

    AI and automation are advancing rapidly, and if left unchecked, they could create a dystopian future where a few individuals control all economic power while the rest of humanity struggles to survive. The argument that “AI will create more jobs than it destroys” is not supported by historical evidence, and traditional economic models may not survive the disruption AI will bring.

    If we fail to implement fair wealth redistribution mechanisms, we risk plunging into a world of extreme inequality, mass unemployment, and social unrest. The only way forward is to rethink how economic power is distributed in an AI-dominated world—before it’s too late. It is important to not always do things because we can, but always evaluate if we should.

  • On Responsibility, Accountability and Submission

    I’ve come to understand is that a very pivotal feature for the progress of any society is responsibility and accountability. There should be people responsible for certain things. There should be people and resources submitted to those responsible. And those responsible should be held accountable for any shortcomings regarding who and what they’re responsible for.

     

    Traditionally, the man of the house is responsible for providing for and protecting the wife and kids. If any harm ever befalls the wife or child, the man is inclusively held accountable. Where was he when someone was slapping his child? And for that arrangement to work, the wife and child are expected to be submitted to the man. If he insists you should not go to XYZ place, don’t go. Going despite his instruction is you consenting to not be entitled to his protection. His reason for asking you not to go isn’t important. And that is accountability on your part. No one is going to hold him responsible if kids 50km away are homeless. It’s the kids he’s responsible for that he’ll be held accountable to.

     

    Hence, in many societies, parents can make certain decisions for the child. And the child can’t make certain decisions without parental consent. Because the parents are responsible for the child and the child is accountable to the parents. If you’re saying parents don’t have a right to make certain decisions for the child, you’re also agreeing that the parent isn’t responsible for the child in certain matters. So, when the child becomes an adult and seeks independence to do as he pleases, he’s also choosing to relinquish the protection and provision from the parent. This is not to say a parent can’t protect or provide for their adult children. It’s to say it’s no longer their responsibility, but mere benevolence, once the child has chosen to be independent.

     

    We were taught early in school that family is the smallest unit of the society. So, the matter of responsibility, accountability and submission scales as you begin to zoom out. From local government, to regional to national. People vote in leaders, put them in charge of their common wealth. And in exchange, those people are responsible providing certain things including amenities and security. And even in the case where the leader wasn’t voted in but forced his/her way in, the rules are still the same. The leader is in charge of the common wealth of the society, the citizens submit to the leader, and in exchange, the leader provides for and protects the people.

     

    However, some societies hold their leaders responsible more than others. And I think that distinction is what differentiates a society that will make it from the one that won’t. A society that cannot hold its leaders responsible is not going to make it. When things go well, the first thing most people think of is who to blame or who’s responsible. And it’s why society evolved to have dedicated roles. Most times, if you try to run a system with the ideology of “everyone is responsible”, then no one is responsible and the system will fail. Because you’ll have some trying to do everything and some doing nothing. It’s why you’ll usually specify roles.

     

    So, when there’s a problem with water, and the society decides to blame the person put in charge of music, that society is not going to make it. But that’s exactly what happens in some societies today. You have elected leaders, put in charge of your common wealth so they can provide for and protect in certain regard, say water. Suddenly, there’s no water. Instead of holding the Minister of Water responsible, they will handpick, people will turn to the Minister of Music, insult him and say he’s to blame for lack of water. That kind of anomaly incentivizes people to not do their job, knowing someone else is gonna be held responsible for it anyway. End result? A dysfunctional society.

     

    An unfortunate event happens somewhere in the country and instead of holding the elected and delegated leaders responsible, you hold a political aspirant responsible. So you want them to be responsible for you, without you submitting and being accountable to them.

     

    Someone decides to educate the public on certain matter and you’re holding them responsible for the situation of things. There’s fuel scarcity in your territory and you’re holding software engineers for building an app to identify which stations have fuel. The roads are suddenly unsafe and you’re holding the citizens accountable to buy bullet proof buses and provide armed escort. Foreigners paying for your medication decide to stop and you’re holding them to it instead of the people you pay taxes to. Another country decides that they don’t want to admit more people into their country, and you’re insulting their president instead of holding yours responsible for making your home country unlivable. In what world does that make sense?

     

    I’m yet to figure out if it’s the inability to determine who’s responsible. Or maybe it’s just cowardice. Let the weak one take the blame instead of laying it firmly at the feet of the person responsible.