Sam Altman, AI, And The Collective Societal Brink

Seems like we’ve had our collective heads in the sand about automation for about 20+ years, even though it’s been coming for parts of the American Midwest for longer than that — and that’s a huge part of why Trump won in 2016, actually. It’s a perfect storm for automation to sweep in right now, because:

• We’re still rassling with the “what is work?” repercussions of COVID.
• The legislative branch is meaningless.
• Big money doesn’t tend to care about workers.
• It’s easy to sell the narrative.

More on these in a second. For now, understand that the main guy behind OpenAI AI is Sam Altman, formerly of Y Combinator inator, who helps do a good job explaining why bosses are meaningless here.

So that’s a fun first question: if bosses are indeed meaningless and inspire so much hate, how’s about we automate them out first? Ha!

Here’s Rebecca Jarvis of ABC News talking to Altman, in which he comes off as a slightly-more-adept Mark Zuck:

Alright, so let’s go through some of this right now.

What does our automated future look like?

I do not think we know. I think we understand that it probably means:

• Less jobs
• A different tax base
• Maybe a techno-state

But does anyone know? No, I don’t think so.

The discussions that are distracting us

Right now those would be:

• WFH
• Hybrid
• Return to office
• “What is work and how much of my life should it occupy?”

Meanwhile, ChatGPT is smarter than your 15 year-old as you write essays about “purpose in the cubicles.”

The legislative branch is broken

It does nothing except try to out-alienate each other for more airtime on cable. Nothing hapens there. So the entire system is driven by the courts and the banks, right? In broad terms, ’tis true.

The courts tend to be older and (right now) more conservative. I don’t think they fully understand the implications of judicial rulings on AI stuff. Do you think people debating Section 230 in 1996 knew what it would create 27 years later? I don’t. And obviously no one can predict the future, but the current courts aren’t set up to handle this well.

Banks? They want returns and they want to protect the like-minded (and like-looking). Automation means less overhead and less health insurance paid out. Win-win.

Big money doesn’t care about workers

No need to deeply elaborate here. Replaceable cogs. A few of them might rise up and become the lieutenants of big money. That’s all.

The narrative is easy to sell

First of all, most people are pretty stupid and don’t pay attention to macro-trends around them. They raise their kids and try to get a paycheck, hope Hulu has some good new stuff, try to get to the gym, and hope to get laid once in a while, married or not.

Here’s how we chase down the AI/automation/jobs/etc. narrative:

• “It will replace jobs, but it will also create better jobs!”

That is true in some senses. The sheer invention of the iPhone and the iOS ecosystem killed some jobs, but created lots of jobs that didn’t exist in 1993. Good. The problem is that you can always cherrypick some specific examples, and the bigger picture is job loss. The scary part about right this second is that for the last 100 or so years, automation primarily came for blue-collar, machine, factory, and industrial work. Now it is squarely coming for white-collar, “knowledge” work. There will be no need for entry-level lawyers in 20 years. Doc review? Barry Bot can handle. There will be no need for accountants, potentially. If you watch that Jarvis clip above, a cousin of ChatGPT does tax filing for a mythical family in about two seconds. Bam. Job loss.

If executives of companies truly wanted to create “better jobs,” wouldn’t they have done that already?

Here’s the next argument:

• “With less time on monotony and tasks, we will unlock the creative class!”

Again, true in some contexts. A few people who would have been cubicle drones will become the next daVinci. Yes. Writ-large? No. We’ll probably create more addicts and soul-suckers than Michelangelos. Look at COVID. We took away efficacy (thankfully we extended the social safety net). What happened? Spikes in domestic violence, addiction, and mental health issues. I don’t think your job should be your life, no. But people need to do something. I’ve been unemployed and under-employed, and both are depressing. Sometimes, it can even lead to drinking 10 beers on a random weekday.

I did that more than a few times while under-employed. Now, if you have no job, you probably have no money, and 10 beers is expensive. So there’s a caveat there. But I think a 40% automated future could scale some real societal problems. And with a halfway-decent job market right now, we already have this:

The third narrative:

• “We’ll all be more efficient.”

People don’t really care about efficiency. Executives, thought leaders, and productivity coaches (some YouTubers too) might. Most people care about relevance. It’s not “efficient” to have five kids. Some do it anyway. Why? Love of God? That’s what they say. The real reason is often personal relevance. It’s the same reason people schedule meetings. We’re not concerned with being efficient. We’re concerned with showing people we matter and getting that feeling back from others. Automation won’t help with those things.

The fourth narrative:

• “Progress waits for no one!”

Indeed. And that’s where we’re at right now. So we’ve got some heady questions to consider, including:

1. How do we determine what jobs are gone? Is it based on $ hourly, or the type of role, or what?
2. What about the tax base?
3. What about the safety net?
4. How are we funneling this new creative class into those creative endeavors?
5. If we can’t solve the “black box” problem, should we fear robots taking us over, i.e. the Alison Williams vehicle Megan?

Etc, etc.

What’s your current take?