It was UK government policy after WW2 to run the economy to achieve full employment and pursued by both main parties. Reagan and Thatcher came along and ripped up that consensus, handing our fate over to ‘the markets’, which really means ‘the rich’.
We don’t have to passively accept whatever the Tech bros and Corporations decide to foist upon us. We have agency and can demand alternatives, for a different set of priorities. I can only see the current paths, pessimist and optimist. leading to unrest and violence.
You seem to overlook the idea that most people don't expect to have a job for life anymore.
Most likely, the main reason for loggers not reskilling at the time was that they expected to be loggers for life and the economy was not set up for reskilling.
Things are very different now, which means I find the argument for slower introduction of AI not carry strong.
Adaptation is *much* easier now than it was in the past.
It was UK government policy after WW2 to run the economy to achieve full employment and pursued by both main parties. Reagan and Thatcher came along and ripped up that consensus, handing our fate over to ‘the markets’, which really means ‘the rich’.
We don’t have to passively accept whatever the Tech bros and Corporations decide to foist upon us. We have agency and can demand alternatives, for a different set of priorities. I can only see the current paths, pessimist and optimist. leading to unrest and violence.
You seem to overlook the idea that most people don't expect to have a job for life anymore.
Most likely, the main reason for loggers not reskilling at the time was that they expected to be loggers for life and the economy was not set up for reskilling.
Things are very different now, which means I find the argument for slower introduction of AI not carry strong.
Adaptation is *much* easier now than it was in the past.