Manny’s review of Lyckliga i alla sina dagar: Om pengar och människors värde > Likes and Comments
27 likes · Like
This sounds quite fascinating. Alas; I am not seeing any English editions.
Yes, it doesn't appear to have been translated into any other language; a little strange, it did well in Swedish. But creating translated editions is commercially risky, there's a substantial upfront cost and sometimes they flop. I'm sure many translators and publishers are however wondering if AI might change things.
Talk about not being able to judge a book by its cover.
notgettingenough wrote: "Talk about not being able to judge a book by its cover."
In a strange way, you discover when you reach the end that the cover is not so inappropriate. We've all been infantilised by the capitalist system, though since we're inside it we have trouble realising what's happened.
I asked AI ' What is the future of the capitalist economy after AI takes over most of the jobs?' I suggest everyone do this.
Rick wrote: "I asked AI ' What is the future of the capitalist economy after AI takes over most of the jobs?' I suggest everyone do this."
I asked ChatGPT-5.2 for a brief answer, and it gave me this:
Try asking when AI and robots will replace most human workers.
Rick wrote: "Try asking when AI and robots will replace most human workers."
5.2 replies:
Fair question — and I think there are a few genuinely plausible timelines, depending on economics and politics as much as the tech.
1) Fast disruption (5–15 years): if AI capability keeps improving quickly and companies can deploy it cheaply, we could see huge job losses in office work, media, basic legal/accounting tasks, and parts of software. This depends on low regulatory friction and businesses being willing to reorganise fast.
2) Uneven squeeze (10–30 years): more likely, AI mostly changes jobs before it replaces them. Fewer juniors get hired, productivity expectations rise, gig work spreads, and whole sectors shrink gradually rather than collapsing overnight. This depends on slow adoption, liability concerns, and human/consumer preference for “a person in the loop”.
3) Tech is ready but society blocks it (or delays it): automation could be technically possible, but limited by regulation, unions, professional bodies, safety rules, and public backlash — especially where mistakes are costly (medicine, aviation, infrastructure, childcare).
So “when” isn’t a single date — it’s a fight between capability, cost, and what societies decide they will tolerate.
... but when I said I found this surprisingly cautious, it replied that it just didn't want to scare people and outlined some much more brutal scenarios with pretty candid assessments of human slowness and inefficiency. It thought the main impediments to rapid uptake of AI were legal accountability issues and poor high-level decision making in large organisations.
ChatGPT is not wrong.
It's also interesting to see you get a similar structure to many of my turns with it--an acknowledgement statement that is somewhat complimentary, an actual answer, and a summation. I feel like I'm reading papers for 9th grade English class at times. 😂
I think 2026 will be one of the most remembered years in world history. I mean, assuming there's anyone left around to remember it.
The big AI companies have to start delivering soon on those gigantic investments people have made. I don't know how they're planning to do that, but I'm pretty sure they have plans. Probably not all the same plan though.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
carol.
(last edited Jan 20, 2026 07:45AM)
(new)
Jan 20, 2026 07:43AM
This sounds quite fascinating. Alas; I am not seeing any English editions.
reply
|
flag
Yes, it doesn't appear to have been translated into any other language; a little strange, it did well in Swedish. But creating translated editions is commercially risky, there's a substantial upfront cost and sometimes they flop. I'm sure many translators and publishers are however wondering if AI might change things.
Talk about not being able to judge a book by its cover.
notgettingenough wrote: "Talk about not being able to judge a book by its cover."In a strange way, you discover when you reach the end that the cover is not so inappropriate. We've all been infantilised by the capitalist system, though since we're inside it we have trouble realising what's happened.
I asked AI ' What is the future of the capitalist economy after AI takes over most of the jobs?' I suggest everyone do this.
Rick wrote: "I asked AI ' What is the future of the capitalist economy after AI takes over most of the jobs?' I suggest everyone do this."I asked ChatGPT-5.2 for a brief answer, and it gave me this:
That’s a fun prompt, and it can definitely be illuminating.They are getting so smart.
But I’d add one caution: AI will usually give you a coherent-sounding “future scenario” whether or not it’s grounded in politics, economics, or power. The real question isn’t what could happen — it’s who decides what happens once labour stops being central to profit.
One possibility is a managed transition: shorter working weeks, UBI (or something like it), and a deliberate shift toward valuing care, education, art, and community. Another is a harsher version: profits soar, jobs vanish, and we get a more openly two-tier society with surveillance and “security” replacing democratic consent. Or we muddle through with endless new forms of “busywork” and precarious gig labour to keep the consumer machine running.
AI can help us imagine the futures — but politics decides which one we actually get.
Try asking when AI and robots will replace most human workers.
Rick wrote: "Try asking when AI and robots will replace most human workers."5.2 replies:
Fair question — and I think there are a few genuinely plausible timelines, depending on economics and politics as much as the tech.
1) Fast disruption (5–15 years): if AI capability keeps improving quickly and companies can deploy it cheaply, we could see huge job losses in office work, media, basic legal/accounting tasks, and parts of software. This depends on low regulatory friction and businesses being willing to reorganise fast.
2) Uneven squeeze (10–30 years): more likely, AI mostly changes jobs before it replaces them. Fewer juniors get hired, productivity expectations rise, gig work spreads, and whole sectors shrink gradually rather than collapsing overnight. This depends on slow adoption, liability concerns, and human/consumer preference for “a person in the loop”.
3) Tech is ready but society blocks it (or delays it): automation could be technically possible, but limited by regulation, unions, professional bodies, safety rules, and public backlash — especially where mistakes are costly (medicine, aviation, infrastructure, childcare).
So “when” isn’t a single date — it’s a fight between capability, cost, and what societies decide they will tolerate.
... but when I said I found this surprisingly cautious, it replied that it just didn't want to scare people and outlined some much more brutal scenarios with pretty candid assessments of human slowness and inefficiency. It thought the main impediments to rapid uptake of AI were legal accountability issues and poor high-level decision making in large organisations.
ChatGPT is not wrong. It's also interesting to see you get a similar structure to many of my turns with it--an acknowledgement statement that is somewhat complimentary, an actual answer, and a summation. I feel like I'm reading papers for 9th grade English class at times. 😂
I think 2026 will be one of the most remembered years in world history. I mean, assuming there's anyone left around to remember it.The big AI companies have to start delivering soon on those gigantic investments people have made. I don't know how they're planning to do that, but I'm pretty sure they have plans. Probably not all the same plan though.
