Artificial Intelligence and Automation (see also "Political Economy" topic) > Likes and Comments

Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have prompted wide public discussion of its propriety or impropriety and what, if anything, government should do about it.

I am not an expert on this subject. I am, however, currently aware of four major uses of AI:

1. For research purposes: I myself have used Microsoft Copilot AI as a research tool and have found it highly effective, saving me hours of time that I otherwise would have had to spend locating publications on specific subjects.

2. To create essays, creative literature, term papers, etc.: I regard this as unethical if it is done to pass off AI writing as one’s own. I see this as being mostly a problem for high schools, colleges, and universities. I understand that these institutions are developing tools to deal with this problem, just as they have developed tools in the past for detecting plagiarism. More broadly, it falls within the plagiarism policing of public media generally, including but not limited to copyright enforcement.

3. Military uses: see my post 262 (October 20, 2023) and my post 267 (October 31, 2023) in the “International Law and Politics” of this group.

4. Replacement of a large percentage of middle-class workers whose jobs can be done more quickly and efficiently by AI. This problem is further discussed below; see also the "Political Economy" topic of this Goodreads group.

For other discussions in this group on AI, do a search for “artificial intelligence” in the “search discussion posts” box located at the top right of each webpage in this group.

Please feel free to comment on these or other uses of AI or on your own views regarding this complicated subject.

Revised February 5, 2026

The Race to Regulate Artificial Intelligence: Why Europe Has an Edge Over America and China

Τhe foregoing is the title of this June 27, 2023 Foreign Affairs article by Anu Bradford: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united.... Bradford is Professor at Columbia Law School and the author of the forthcoming book Digital Empires: The Global Battle to Regulate Technology. (This Foreign Affairs article can be freely accessed, notwithstanding a subscription paywall, by agreeing to receive weekly/occasional emails from Foreign Affairs regarding their current articles.)

The third paragraph of this article summarizes its content:

With tech companies racing to advance artificial intelligence capabilities amid intense criticism and scrutiny, Washington is facing mounting pressure to craft AI regulation without quashing innovation. Different regulatory paradigms are already emerging in the United States, China, and Europe, rooted in distinct values and incentives. These different approaches will not only reshape domestic markets—but also increasingly guide the expansion of American, Chinese, and European digital empires, each advancing a competing vision for the global digital economy while attempting to expand its sphere of influence in the digital world.

CONSCIOUSNESS, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, REAL INTELLIGENCE, QUANTUM MIND, QUALIA, AND FREE WILL

I discuss the relevant work of biologist and complexity theorist Stuart A. Kauffman on pages 91–92 of my 2021 book Free Will and Human Life (a PDF replica of which is online at https://www.academia.edu/108171849/Al...).

Kauffman and an Italian scholar, Andrea Boli, have recently published a paper titled “What Is Consciousness? Artificial Intelligence, Real Intelligence, Quantum Mind and Qualia” in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2023, 139, 530–38. This essay is freely accessible at https://www.academia.edu/110296461/Wh.... I have quickly read through this article once, and I will study it further. Although it is a scientific paper, the authors write in clear language that is not impossible for the layperson to understand. Here are a few relevant excerpts:

This short paper makes four major claims: (i) artificial general intelligence is not possible; (ii) brain-mind is not purely classical; (iii) brain-mind must be partly quantum; (iv) qualia are experienced and arise with our collapse of the wave function. . . .

[F]or the first time since Newton, a Responsible Free Will is not ruled out. In the deterministic world of Newton, Free Will is impossible. Given quantum mechanics, the result of an actualization of measurement outcome is ontologically indeterminate, but fully random. I have Free Will but not Responsible Free Will. If I can try to alter the quantum outcome and succeed, responsible free will is not ruled out. This, if true, is transformative. . . .

With a responsible free will, we are indeed beyond Compatibilism . . . .

Moral: AI currently is wonderful, but syntactic and algorithmic. We are not merely syntactic and algorithmic. Mind is almost certainly quantum, and it is a plausible hypothesis that we collapse the wave function, and thereby perceive coordinated affordances as qualia and seize them by identifying, preferring, choosing and acting to do so. We, with our minds, play an active role in evolution. The complexity of mind and coordinated behaviours can have evolved, and diversified with and furthered, the complexity of life. At last, since Descartes lost his res cogitans, mind can act in the world.

Free at last.

Independent philosopher Robert Hanna, a member of this group, first introduced me to the work of Stuart Kauffman a few years ago, and I invite him to comment on the above-referenced paper.

I am cross-filing the present post in the “Free Will” and “Artificial Intelligence” topics of this Goodreads group.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE HUMAN MIND

I highly recommend the article titled “Subcontracting Our Minds” (https://www.academia.edu/125223176/Su...) by Timothy Burns, a political science professor who focuses on political philosophy.

IS AI READY FOR PRIME TIME IN THE COURTROOM?

As a long-retired litigation lawyer, I have questioned for decades the assertion that lawyers can and will be replaced by computers (now AI). Per this August 15, 2025 article (https://apnews.com/article/australia-...), it looks like AI is not (yet?) ready for prime time in the courtroom. I'm sure it can provide assistance, just as Westlaw and LEXIS have provided computer-based legal research assistance for both lawyers and paralegals since the 1970s (per my AI search, which confirms my recollection).

Legislators in New York (and probably elsewhere) flirt with the notion of banning it; or regulating it with warning flags like liquor and tobacco.

It's devastating arts & entertainment, despite the recent Hollywood strike where it was a specific bone of contention.

I can't help but wonder why the tech sector continually foists these 'advancements' on us which we never asked for and suffered no penury doing without. Instead of a boon, it's just another hobgoblin to grapple with.

Feliks wrote: "Legislators in New York (and probably elsewhere) flirt with the notion of banning it; or regulating it with warning flags like liquor and tobacco.

It's devastating arts & entertainment, despite th..."

"Generative AI" (having AI write one's papers, books, etc.) is, to my mind, a bad thing; I do all of my own writing without allowing AI to create it. However, I find AI helpful as a research tool. It often finds references that answer complex questions I have about history etc. It tells me in a few seconds what it used to take hours of my time to find in a library.

Like so many technological advances, it can be used for good purposes, or it can be abused.

I think banning AI is probably an impossible idea, similar to banning alcohol in the Prohibition era.

Artificial intelligence should serve humanity as a whole, and not steal our humanity. Poetry, philosophy, and art are, among other things, what make us reflect on ourselves and express our way of seeing the world. We should not allow an automatism to replace us in these endeavors; rather, we should direct automatism toward freeing us from the heavy works that prevent us from developing in these disciplines. Yet the dark reality is that behind artificial intelligence lies an immense army of underpaid workers tasked with perfecting this automation.

[re: msg #7] Alan wrote: "Like so many technological advances, it can be used for good purposes, or it can be abused...."

It's true that technology often comes with "trade-offs" --faster cars or quicker meal-times, for example -- in exchange for an unknown percentage of new mortalities each year.

Of course some technologies are so plainly, unmistakably bad that they have always been banned. Such as, nerve gas.

But I ask: why does the public never get the privilege of referendum when any of these unknown risk factors are added to our lives? Why do ordinary folk never have input to development trends? Why is it always outside the democratic process?

Automobiles and highways were introduced to America in this way --underhandedly. No one asked anyone beforehand whether we wanted travel revolutionized. Unscrupulous private firms carried out the transformation without any let or hindrance. They took it for granted that sales would vindicate their rash step. We weren't even asked afterwards. A fait accompli,

I'd like to see more such banning (re: nerve gas) return --since ever more such reckless technologies continue to abound. Yes, I admit it's unlikely.

Setting aside the Arts and treating just the main engines of our culture (law, gov't, science, engineering): it still seems to me highly reckless if professional or business documents would no longer prepared by professionals in these respective fields.

(Computer programmers are in no way licensed professionals of any kind whatsoever.)

For example --if my freedom or my livelihood was being shaped in any way by a US court ? --I would scream like a panther if any part of the decision was authored by a programmer.

Thus, I'd be astonished if AI was ever given a footprint in the apparatus which actually runs our society. In the same way, I only trust licensed doctors to write my medical prescriptions.

At the minimum, algorithms introduce yet another reason for citizens to 'mistrust' language. The 'man-in-the-American-street' already being very inclined to such mistrust; adding a valid reason which bolsters his suspicions --this strikes me as foolhardy.

Widespread mistrust of rule-of-law; or rule-of-government can create dangerous political fissures.

So --"Let prejudice have its say", as it were --even though it emanates from an unabashed, "knee-jerk techno-phobe" (myself).

AEJ --Alan --I wonder if I can cordially and friendly quiz you a little bit about your philosophy here in this thread. It would be a rare treat and also highlight the theme of your series of post-legal-career books (which I admire). Is it OK to ask you questions here, which pertain to this?

Feliks wrote: "AEJ --Alan --I wonder if I can cordially and friendly quiz you a little bit about your philosophy here in this thread. It would be a rare treat and also highlight the theme of your series of post-l..."

I am working on completing my final book, Reason and Human Government, which will take me another few weeks. And, really, everything you need to know about my philosophy is contained in those books, all of which are/will be freely available in PDF at https://chicago.academia.edu/AlanJohnson. (They can also be purchased on Amazon in Kindle and paperback editions; all of the Kindle editions are priced at $2.99 USD.) And drafts of the introduction, chapters 1–4, and the epilogue of Reason and Human Government are even posted at https://chicago.academia.edu/AlanJohnson, pending the completion of this book, after which I will post the entirety of it. I am currently working on chapter 5, which is the last chapter.

So, I don’t have time to engage in a dialogue about my philosophy with you right now. I would suggest that you read my books first (freely, if you wish, at the above-cited link) and then, if you have any questions, you can ask me. In any case, I will not be able to discuss this until after Reason and Human Government is completed and in print (sometime in September or October, 2025).

[February 1, 2026 Note: A PDF of my now-published book Reason and Human Government is available at https://www.academia.edu/145862733/Re.... Kindle and paperback editions are available at https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0G....]

AI and JOBS

AI is already having a significant negative impact on employment. This is likely to get worse in the near and far future. The following October 13, 2025 article in Foreign Affairs magazine examines this problem and discusses possible ways to deal with it: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united.... The article also explains how populist actions against immigrants and trade will not do anything to solve this problem but will instead make it worse.

Quote from the article: "Virtually every piece of research suggests that restricting immigration and trade will not stop companies from adopting AI. In fact, it may hasten layoffs. Reducing trade, for example, will raise input costs, shrink export markets, and heighten policy uncertainty—pressures that make labor-saving technologies such as automation more attractive in exposed industries."

Nonsubscribers to Foreign Affairs can access the entire article, without cost, by giving the magazine their email address for notices of future articles.

Alan wrote: "AI and JOBS

AI is already having a significant negative impact on employment. This is likely to get worse in the near and far future. The following October 13, 2025 article in Foreign Affairs maga..."

(Couldn't read the Foreign Affairs article)

AI is just the natural evolution of human technology. Ever since the invention of the wheel, the goal of innovation has been to optimize human labor, making it easier and more effective. Since the Industrial Revolution, this has led to high unemployment rates, for example, when textile machinery replaced manual workers. However, the way our society has been built, that is to say, to produce not for humanity itself but for the sake of private profit, creates new and unnecessary markets. And paradoxically, human labor is always needed.

A singularity of AI is that it needs a huge amount of human labor to work. Not to mention that every piece of information that chat AIs provide comes from human-made sources. That is to say, for AI to work as a source of profit, companies need a whole external system of human labor supply, because the actual abstract profit always comes from salary. Here is the trick: a company owner makes a profit from their workers, but if these workers don't get a salary, the monetary profit doesn't make sense. Think about it, if you produce tons of, let's say, cars, your goal is to sell those cars. If nobody has a salary because everything is made by robots, you are producing literal waste if you are not willing to give those cars for free. How do you even calculate prices if money loses the role of mediator between commodities and labor? Even the single accumulation of money would be a waste in such a society of automated work. Not to mention that the main source of income of our beloved Western leaders (financial speculation) would result in a huge waste of time if things stopped having a price.

I am not personally against automating certain kinds of labor. I think that agricultural labor, for example, could get a huge improvement if we replace humans with robots/drones, etc. In my region, agricultural workers are usually illegal immigrants who are employed in dystopic labor conditions and for a ridiculous amount of salary. If work is often (if not every single time) alienating, because the worker is not aware (because everyone of us works to get a salary) of how their work is part of an abstract mechanism of global work that configures the whole global society in one way or another, agricultural workers in semi-slavery conditions are less aware about that their job is literally feeding us. A robot doesn't need a salary and doesn't get emotional, which means that everything produced by a robot follows the same pattern and, with some human supervision, can increase the product quality.

I do believe that erasing the competition between companies and countries, humanity as a whole, could organize society in a way where humans are liberated from hard labor and can work on things chosen by vocation and not by the urge for a salary. You can call me a utopian, but the facts are that automated work is leading us to a huge contradiction between Labor and Capital. And besides the ongoing conflicts, humanity is connected enough to take a new step towards global pacification and production oriented to the real human needs.

P.S. Marketing completely distorts human needs. The goal of marketing (which is the main organizer of the nowadays capitalist society in every single social aspect) is to satisfy an artificial need. This is bringing us to create new (and absurd) markets that absorb human capacities and resources just for the profit of the genius (99% of the time, rich) behind the campaign. Have you ever seen a product in a shop, and asked yourself: who the f*** buys this sh**? Through an efficient marketing campaign, probably somebody does. The truth is that we don't need many of the things we use on our daily basis, and we just use these things because we were convinced that we needed those things. We don't even need to have 8000 brands for the same product; a coordinated production would be enough. But this is probably a new topic.

P.S.2. Please, don't judge me because of my overusage of the word ''literally'' or ''literal'', I am a young, non-academic, self-taught, non-native English speaker.

“Professors are turning to this old-school method to stop AI use on exams”

The foregoing is the title of this December 12, 2025 Washington Post gift article: https://wapo.st/48zzw1Z. (As a result of my Washington Post subscription, the preceding link can be accessed without charge for fourteen days, notwithstanding the usual Washington Post paywall.) The article notes that many professors in colleges and universities are turning to oral exams and blue book (in-class written) exams as an antidote to AI cheating. This is probably the only way to solve the problem of AI cheating in higher education. It is regrettable but likely inevitable. I learned to write by numerous outside paper requirements in high school, college, and grad school, though most of my law school courses during the 1970s had in-class blue book exams. In these blue book exams, we were assigned a number for each exam, so that the professor would not be able to identify the student by name. The grades were posted by number on a public bulletin board. In order to avoid cheating and personal prejudice of any kind, blue book exams (with numbers replacing student names on the exam) are likely the best practice. Oral exams (which I have never experienced) cannot, of course, avoid personal prejudice, though in many ways they might be the best way of testing a student’s knowledge and understanding. However, oral exams may be very time consuming for the instructor, especially in large courses; moreover, they test instant recall as distinguished from the more thoughtful and reflective process of writing an outside paper. But AI has destroyed the erstwhile outside paper requirement for student evaluations.

I am posting this comment in both the “Artificial Intelligence” and “Education; Public Libraries” topics of this Goodreads group.

“Pennsylvania judge questions potential AI hallucinations in legal brief for gender-identity suit”

The foregoing is the title of this December 12, 2025 article: https://www.wesa.fm/politics-governme....

This phenomenon has been happening all over the country. Lawyers have a duty to examine all legal authorities they cite in their briefs. If they are just trusting AI to do this, we might as well turn the legal profession over to AI robots. I've always said that AI will never replace lawyers, especially litigation lawyers. Perhaps I spoke too soon.

Scathing article re: AI from Forbes magazine in light of this year's (August thru October) colossal data breach which took place at Google Inc. Largest data breach yet, in "cyber-history".

vhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffm...

If it's not too egregious a use of discussion space, I'll reprint the entire article due to Forbes' paywall.

The critical decisions 2 billion users now face to maintain their security and privacy.

There’s nothing to worry about, Google tells Gmail’s 2 billion users, everything is fine. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. There is a serious issue that you need to worry about. All the misleading headlines and quickfire denials have not made that go away.

In recent weeks we have seen two versions of the same pattern. A loosely framed Gmail story triggering wild headlines and a public correction. First was a huge security breach framed as a new Gmail password leak. Then came a new Google policy on AI training.

The breach was not new and it was not linked to Gmail. An amalgamation of prior data leaks will always contain plenty of Gmail data — it’s the world’s largest email platform. And there has been no policy change on AI training on Gmail inboxes.

Google pointed all this out, and the wild headlines morphed into “nothing to see here.” This pattern will continue to repeat. Nothing has fundamentally changed.

But this is all bad news for users — the stories and the corrections. It points to a lack of understanding of privacy policies and what’s actually being done with user data. It’s not a Google-specific issue. But Google is the gorilla in the cage. And that matters.

Here’s the crux. Gemini is not your close personal friend, it’s not your confidente. Neither is ChatGPT or Copilot. They’re someone else’s computer, operating out of grey data centers, consuming an increasing percentage of the world’s energy and water.

You are responsible for your own privacy and security. Not Google. Not Meta. Not OpenAI. Not even Apple. You can select the vendors and platforms you think have the best architectures and defenses and privacy polices. But the choice is yours.

Google is often painted as a bête noire when it comes to privacy. But its platforms dominate. Just look at Chrome. An unassailable install base despite almost continual privacy warnings — including from Apple and Microsoft. This perfectly illustrates the disconnect. Users can’t say they weren’t warned when tracking takes place.

And so it is with Gmail. You have one very specific choice to make, as confirmed by Google repeatedly and again recently. Using its cloud-based services is your decision. Your opt-in. And even if some users have been automatically opted in by default, a quick check and two taps/clicks and that can be easily corrected.

If you allow Gemini — aka Google’s vast array of power-hungry servers in global data centers — to pore over your inbox, to analyze your private emails, however sensitive they are — then that’s fine. As long as you have made a conscious decision to do so.

Make a choice. Do not sacrifice your privacy through inertia or ambivalence.

And that’s where Google (and Microsoft and Meta and others) can be criticized. Privacy policies are a mess. It should be impossible for users to open their data to cloud services without a clear understanding as to what that actually means.

Meanwhile, tech giants will continue to pour billions into new AI capabilities and the wall-to-wall marketing shaping this new space race. As they do so, 2 billion Gmail users and the billions on all the other platforms will continue to sleep walk onto thin ice.

A new report puts Google’s unstoppable AI push across Gmail and other Workspace platforms into context: “Could Microsoft walk away with the corporate AI market?”

Josh Bersin suggests “Microsoft is staking out the market for corporate productivity and AI infrastructure, leveraging its massive Microsoft 365 install base and deep relationships with IT.” And “for individual productivity, Microsoft has now "embedded Copilot agents into Word, Excel, and Powerpoint, with insights into Outlook.”

Meanwhile, Parmy Olson writing for Bloomberg suggests “ChatGPT still has a winning edge over Google’s AI.” But what OpenAI lacks is a legacy install base. That makes Google and Microsoft hard to beat — ultimately.

The lesson from the recent launch of AI browsers, which don’t yet make much sense and so won’t yet disrupt the status quo, is that AI is at its most powerful when applied to what we’re doing already. Yes, ChatGPT defined a new category, but will this really succeed standalone or will it need to be stitched into Google’s or Microsoft’s productivity apps or into Apple’s or Google’s or Microsoft’s OS ecosystems?

In reality, we’re at the beginning of the space race. But what’s also clear is that privacy and user data security is not the differentiator we thought when Apple launched Private Cloud Computing and tried to use the iPhone enclave to expand into AI. Just as with browsers, users are showing they don’t yet care or worry enough about privacy. And even data security is something of an afterthought. Who doesn’t want Nano Banana?

Make no mistake — you’re already out on that thin ice.

p.s. What else of recent interest besides Google being hacked? Ah yes, Airbus (leading plane maker) discovering solar storms hampering flight controls on cockpit software. Half the globe's commercial jumbo jet fleet; grounded. What else: one global outage of Microsoft Windows, one global internet outage. All our infrastructure is held together with bubble gum.

The Atlantic Monthly is publishing a series of articles investigating this new tech sector.

Latest finding: the makers of AI have lied to the US Justice Dept about how their language models inherently carry out copyright infringement.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...

This is from WYNYC, (it's a print version of a story covered by my local Public Radio affiliate).

New AI rules for NYC schools coming this month as tech upends classrooms

The city’s education department said new guidelines are coming this month on artificial intelligence for New York City’s public schools – and for some parents the rules can’t come soon enough.

The DOE's Chief Academic Officer Miatheresa Pate said at a meeting of the Panel for Educational Policy last week that the city will release “guardrails for what we do next” with AI. Parents will be able to register their feedback.

Many parents said the city has been slow to come up with clear policies on AI, leading to a spike in plagiarism and privacy risks.

Sarah Gentile, a parent in Brooklyn, said she was alarmed last year to learn that her kindergartner’s class was using voice recording technology as part of the new literacy curriculum.

When she heard about the voice recording, she asked that her daughter not participate, citing concerns about the tech company having access to her daughter’s voice, and the potential for data breaches.

“It’s biometric data,” she said.

Her daughter, now a first grader, and one other child sit in a corner doing a separate activity while their classmates use the voice app, she said.

Gentile said the city should have clear parameters for AI use in schools, inform parents, and offer them the chance to opt out.

“We’re not technophobes,” said Gentile, a digital archivist. “But there seems to be an absence of a tech plan.”

Gentile is among the parents who have signed a petition pushing for a two-year moratorium on all AI in classrooms.

“The largest school system in the country should use its purchasing power and moral authority to protect children, not leave them subject to a surveillance experiment that will undermine learning and leave them a world on fire,” the petition says.

Educators and parents have criticized the department’s approach to AI as slow-footed and inconsistent. The education department banned the use of ChatGPT in schools shortly after it launched two years ago, then lifted the ban. Meanwhile, the teachers union has partnered with big tech companies, promising training in responsible use of the technology.

In recent months the Panel for Education Policy, an oversight body composed of parent representatives and political appointees, has voted down several contracts because of concerns about AI.

Member Naveed Hasan said he opposed greenlighting contracts for AI technology before the city has a policy in place.

“The playbook is late,” he said, adding that tech companies are aggressively marketing their tools to school districts. “There’s so much money pushing products into the DOE.”

Last week, the panel narrowly approved a contract for a company called Kiddom to provide online software and materials that supplement the new literacy and math curricula. The panel initially rejected the contract, and only approved it after the company and Schools Chancellor Kamar Samuels promised the software does not include AI.

“This is critical because we're trying to get to what you want, which is not to have the AI platform available,” said Samuels.

Abbas Manjee, co-founder of Kiddom and a former city teacher, said the AI component of Kiddom can be useful to teachers, but said this version of the product doesn’t have AI. He cautioned against viewing all AI products as privacy risks, saying his platform had safeguards in place.

While crafting the new playbook on AI, the education department convened two working groups, one on data privacy, and another on AI more broadly.

But Leonie Haimson, executive director of Class Size Matters and a member of the data privacy group, said the department has not been transparent.

“Our Working Group has been stymied, sidelined and stonewalled at every step of the way, and refused the most basic information, including the names of AI products currently used in schools, along with their privacy policies,” she wrote in a letter to the panel in December.

Her group has raised concern about software companies “mining” students’ and teachers’ data and called for a pause on AI in schools “until rigorous guardrails are established.”

Education department officials countered that information about student data and privacy is public, and that the working group has met multiple times.

In an interview with WNYC in January, Schools Chancellor Kamar Samuels sounded a note of cautious optimism regarding AI.

“ I think number one thing we have to do is to really work against some of the fear that's attached to the conversation around AI,” he said.

He said the department would be announcing safeguards, while looking to harness AI productively.

“ I'm excited about it,” he said. “It has so much potential to reframe and rethink so much of what we do. And if we do it well, it has the potential to accelerate student learning.”

An opposing philosophy with nice counterpoint:
https://www.the74million.org/article/...

AI and JOBS

The last paragraph of the epilogue of my book Reason and Human Government states:

For millennia, some form of what we call capitalism has been the default economic mechanism. Totalitarian, command economies have never worked. At the present time, however, human societies are facing the possibility of massive unemployment due to automation and artificial intelligence. It may be that more and more people are left behind in this brave new economic world. It is perhaps too soon to predict whether such a calamity will actually occur. If it does happen, governments will have to figure out a way to preserve the human species in the face of unprecedented economic circumstances. Some modification of laissez-faire capitalism may be necessary. The subject of political economy will become all-important. At my advanced age, I will not be around if and when the worst of this phenomenon occurs. It is a question for younger generations to solve.

In his book Null Future: Survival in the Age of Replacement; A Guide to the AI Economy and Human Adaptation, L. Sen recommends that people abandon jobs that will soon be replaced by AI and concentrate on jobs that AI cannot do. For example, AI cannot handle plumbing, surgery, trial litigation, and many personal service jobs. Sen’s analysis is based on personal experience and on many studies that he cites throughout the book. Then there are Elon Musk and the Silicon Valley elitists, who think that AI and robots will basically replace human beings, though without getting into specifics of how people would live without gainful employment (see https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other...). Some argue for universal basic income (UBI). It’s not clear, however, how UBI in an AI and automated world would work. Would government heavily tax AI owners and redistribute their wealth? And, without work, would people learn how to improve their lives through education or by developing skills that cannot be replicated by AI? I am not at all an expert in these matters, but it appears to me that there are many more questions than answers to these quandaries.

I asked Microsoft Copilot AI the following question: “What specific proposals have people made for dealing with the anticipated massive unemployment resulting from AI and automation. Please cite sources.” It give me an answer that is too long and too complicated to be reproduced here. If interested, you can ask this or a related question to your own AI source and see what they say.

A fair day's work --in return for a fair day's pay --this is a traditional virtue of American society. Americans are never afraid of good, hard, honest toil. Historically, we thrive on it.

I hope I never live to see a USA where this is warped, distorted, or misshapen.

It is the height of short-sightedness and folly that computer programmers (among the least well-educated of any sector of our modern workforce) are threatening to disrupt culture to such extent.