I think full automation of lots of jobs will take longer than most people think. I’ve written about why in past. Having said that, It’s very possible that over next 5-10 years augmentation is the main pattern over automation so that copilots dominate fully autonomous agents or tools.
So, what do companies do with this extra productivity from power users? Get even more productivity from same headcount or cut headcount and invest in other areas (buying market share, advertising, exec payouts, more automation where it works, etc)?
We will see some real unemployment from this process — unknown how much or how bad. It doesn’t have to be massive to destabilize specific economic regions and radicalize political outcomes.
UBI is needed, but it’s not gonna replace a white collar income in any major area — and not gonna be at levels that make it even viable for white collar worker in a major city. And no one is talking about Universal Basic Meaning. When your whole identity is connected to your education and career and your cost of living in a major city is $10-$15k/month or more), $1-$2k in month in UBI leaves you highly depressed and pissed off and ready to break things.
Asking government to solve his at the federal level isn’t gonna work. The foundation model companies and funders have to get serious about driving towards better social outcomes and coordinating on what they build, allow API usage for, celebrate and fund.
We can do things like create AIM (augmentation impact metric) and have companies self report augmentation vs automation with tax credits and cap and trade type credits connected.
Foundation model companies can build systems to monitor and limit the most job destroying uses. It won’t be easy, but it would be smart to maintain a strong middle class if we want US to stay a democracy.
Really like the Augmentation-Impact Metric; tracking where AI augments versus automates seems to be the right first step.
I just published two short pieces that pick up your “Universal Basic Meaning” thread: even with solid AIM scores and a healthy UBI, Viktor Frankl's 'existential vacuum' emerges when work-identity fades.
My takeaway is a two-track solution:
an automation dividend feeding UBI to keep the lights on,
and parallel investment in UBM—local creativity labs, care networks, and time-banks—to keep the human spirit on.
Same productivity surplus, two complementary rails. Feel free to have a look at my deeper dive if useful.
Hey J, it's a-ok to talk about the destruction of AI, but there has never been a tech innovation from the wheel til...now that has not accelerated the economy which IS jobs. That will happen in stages, never all at once. construction, training, operate, in 000's of locations, that's the trump plan and it needs time.
I think you have to talk about both. That's responsible journalism...and if you're shy on numbers, man, shoot sachs an email.
It's a good question. I think the market is segmented. For people who live "in the city" which is probably 5-15miles out of downtown (Dal, Aus, Denv), massive shift, robo's and self driving: in 5 years; 80% automated
For people in the burbs, the transition may be slower because the needs are different. scheds are diff, Commuters, will all self drive...how many will that be? In 5 years, about 40% automated trips
Then we have industry...short and long haul carriers,
Short...massive disruption...100% ground del will be automated, the disrupter is Drone...
the long haul is the biggest beneficiary but...the machines will be 100% reliable in 2-3 years...politics is going to push this out 5-8 years for full automation...the fill in time will be manned units but with wide time on duty windows, 12 hours gets you from KC to DENV...there is NO ONE there in the middle of the night...my kid went to college 20 hrs away...It's a lazy drive!! :)
that's how I break it down.
The factor which is also not in the mix is the investment and replacement rate for everyone of the currently garaged vehicles.
my thought
[edit] i think there will be a direct relationship of some kind between the replacement rates of vehicles, the market options when they trade/buy, and the current uptake in the uber/robo and tesla numbers which show the total market of trips, against each of the contenders uptake, there is a formula in there and ChatGTFO can prob figure it out...
And timeline for SDR removals, contact center agent removal, etc. it’s not just when do we get driverless cars to replace taxi drivers. If that’s it, then some of them would migrate to other jobs like trucking. However they can’t if trucking is being replaced. Now look at all sectors that have AI productivity, it means less Full Time Equivalent (FTE) time required. I’ve sold tech for decades and I have been a part of many of the waves. It has created new jobs, yes. However people had time to migrate to them and clear view of where to go to get them.
I think we have a lot more time than the pundits are proffering....
Trucking...replace trucking...
repeat that on the way to work this morning...
In 1994, every home in America, apartment, business, store, and an other gathering place of people, this item open the world, these were "gateway to prosperity"...
a yellow pages and a telephone book***...
trucks will be here for a bit.
***some folks may want to google these items, or ref the smithsoniam search bar...
I keep coming back to a core insight: people already own the biggest corporation in America - the government. Instead of letting private entities capture all the productivity gains from AI and automation while displacing workers, why shouldn't government compete directly and own these key technologies?
Think about it practically: when Figure Robots can work 24/7 for under $1/hour, and those productivity gains flow to private shareholders, we get exactly what you're describing - massive job displacement with concentrated wealth. But if government owned and operated these technologies, those same productivity gains could fund robust UBI and maintain the consumer demand that makes the whole system work. If we automate away hundreds of millions of jobs without a plan for maintaining purchasing power, who exactly will buy the products these ultra-efficient systems produce? The deflationary spiral becomes inevitable.
The "Universal Basic Meaning" insight hits hard too. Traditional UBI proposals of $1-2k monthly can't support $10-15k cost of living anyway. But government ownership of productive AI could fund something more substantial while creating new forms of meaningful work around collectively-owned technologies.
Rather than hoping private companies self-regulate through "augmentation impact metrics," democratic ownership eliminates the conflict of interest entirely. When people collectively own the robots and AI, the incentive shifts from maximizing job displacement to maximizing shared prosperity.
I understand that this is pushing away from capitalism and towards socialism, but perhaps this is the right time for it? The resistance you describe - industry pressure to stay quiet, street protests against Waymo - suggests we're approaching a social inflection point. We can either steer this democratically or watch private interests concentrate unprecedented productive power while society fragments.
What are your thoughts on government as a direct competitor in these spaces rather than a regulator?
And the missing piece is that government will tax robots like employees. The public will like that even though it raises the cost of products. And it will help fund the ever growing social services voters demand.
The price increase concern assumes we're not already paying. Corporate taxes, which fund none of the displaced workers, already pass costs to consumers. But, well-structured public enterprises, like India's largest PSUs, actually outperform comparable private firms while channeling profits back to citizens. The issue isn't public vs. private - it's scale, governance, and strategic focus. Rather than hope private AI companies self-regulate while passing tax costs to us anyway, why not own the productive capacity directly?
We don’t talk enough about how companies treat employees like soda cans. People are brought in to build, to carry the load, and to keep things running. But once they’re no longer seen as useful, they’re tossed aside. It happens quietly, sometimes brutally, and far too often.
The people who are most vulnerable those at the bottom or considered the weakest links are almost always the first to be let go. And the same people just keep getting rotated through the system. Fired here. Hired there. Then laid off again. There’s no long-term stability, no real investment. Just cycles.
What’s the point of all this if we’re not actually developing people? If we’re not giving them a chance to grow, adapt, and thrive in the changing economy?
If companies truly believe in their people, then they need to start putting money where their values are. That means funding education and retraining. That means creating real pathways for workers to learn new skills when their jobs are taken by automation or technology.
We need to rethink how unemployment works too. If layoffs are going to happen on a massive scale, the system needs to provide at least five years of support. Not just short-term relief, but real, meaningful assistance. Enough to help people re-educate, get back on their feet, and find a future.
People always say that new opportunities will come with new technology. Maybe that’s true. But if people are broke, stressed, and stuck in survival mode, how are they supposed to chase those opportunities?
If companies care about ethics and long-term growth, this is the bare minimum. They can’t keep hiring fast and firing faster just to protect a quarterly balance sheet. They need to think in decades, not quarters.
This isn’t just about business. It’s about people. And people aren’t disposable. They aren’t soda cans. It’s time we stop treating them like they are.
I think this will be okay. If AI displaces jobs that were drudge work, no one liked to do it anyway. If AI replaces white collar work, then it was likely too expensive anyway. People can still buy custom handmade furniture, but it's more expensive than if a machine made it. If the 10-20% chance that AI ushers in a world of abundance happens, then we will still create art, play games, and compete in sports. If the 80-90% chance that AI doesn't create abundance happens, then there will be an explosion in entrepreneurship, which will create new jobs.
As an aside, I see the movement to ban phones in school as related to people's rejection of AI. Technophobia is problematic and should be cautioned. Whether its students and young people, or people of the workforce, we need to the do the hard thing as a society of teaching people to adopt and work with technology. There's pros and cons with everything and an abstinence-only approach doesn't work.
Jason this format suits you, more of this and less of the one liner X post incontinence please.
A world where a significant amount of work vanishes means that central planning is essential to placate the masses, who despite the bountiful 'stuff'' really won't be happy or fulfilled no matter how many treats they are given. Constant policy tweaks will be required to get ahead of the frustration of being locked out of meaningful work, and if you do create something original, being immediately mimicked and ripped off by predatory AI. Resentment will build and opportunistic politicians will leap at their chance.
Comparisons by pro AI boosters are always made about the Industrial revolution in Britain and that people adapted and found jobs, but actually most didn't, not in civilian life anyway. The French Revolutionary Wars and then the Napoleonic wars, were raging at the time, (1792 - 1815) consuming massive amounts of the unemployed. The Royal Navy records are full of accounts of destitute weavers (being the main victim of that wave of Industrialisation) being hauled aboard, others to the Army or arms factories.
Throughout the 1800's European powers used mass conscription into the military to help offset disruption caused by the ongoing Industrial revolution, building social cohesion, keeping the people regimented and responsive to Governance as the old social contract was dissolved; Prussia, France, Russia, Spain, Austria- Hungarian Empire, etc. As you know this momentum of forces eventually ended up at 1914.
A Neo Soviet future await us.
BTW thanks for the Kurosawa Ikiru recommendation, appreciated.
@JCal I have idea I’d like your opinion on. What about UBE where everyone has some equity paying monthly dividends from robotic work. The robots can be owned by gov and value generated can go towards paying for social programs. Entrepreneurs can gain access to them by using innovative programs from gov or VC etc incubators that own their own robots. It could create a way for people to leverage the collective productivity gains not just for a few corporations but for the masses.
I believe that if we have gov robot ownership they might use for war vs production. Then in peace time for production and compete with personally owned robots causing conflict and potential riots. Might need two diff classes of robots. Also if fed does this, massive more layoffs in army, navy, marines, Air Force etc. It’s a lot to think through.
JCal - I want to say a heat-felt Thank You! So many of us know what you are saying is true but hear “stop being a Doomsdayer”. We know this is different. The Great Depression saw 24.5% unemployment. Estimates we will see 20-30% job destruction from AI. So we could be facing an extended challenge. Only way to address would be to identify new jobs and income opportunities and up-skill people to take advantage of them. Some say there are new AI jobs but those might be 1:100 jobs replaced. So we need to discuss. Also, it’s not like you can leave help desk job and become trucker as that is getting replaced by robotics. Where are the jobs? Where can people migrate to be productive members of society? Most people listening to the pod aren’t lazy. They want to build great companies and make money and have a sense of self worth. We aren’t discussing because there aren’t any good answers right now. I pray that changes soon and we collectively see a clear path forward to enable both AI/robotics and new income generation by workers, not just small number of owners. Otherwise, I fear more global unrest. Lastly, does this mean we should invest in aerospace and defense stocks?
Because it's going to mean more than just UBI, it's going to require the complete reinvention of society, e.g. probably the end of capitalism and maybe even some form of communism (but reinterpreted because there is no longer labour). That's too hard for most in the US to get their heads around, and probably same for most of the world.
Good on you for thinking of possible options but unfortunately I don't see how it will work. Businesses won't need workers, they'll have AI and robots. How do you divide the equity? What do those starting their careers do? Why do we need anyone running businesses, AI and robots can and will do it all? Sure it won't happen overnight, but it's going to happen faster than most expect (it's exponential). We really need our smartest and brightest (and fairest and kindest) people working on how it's all going to work.
I think by definition, you and I might be part of that category since we are at least talking about it and pitching creative solutions to solve. It’s what startup founders do.
Most college students and recent grads know AI has already consolidated their jobs; 3 jobs, now 1; young people send out 100s of resumes that for the most part go nowhere. Only 5 years ago, a smart college grade with a Computer Science degree was almost guaranteed a 100K starting salary somewhere! Now my son (not a C.S. major) tells me the C.S. majors are deeply worried about finding any job, anywhere as they know all too well what AI has done to their jobs. Do the AI/tech companies have any moral responsibility to care that they are destroying entire industries and/or job functions. I believe YES, but having worked int he hustle hustle startup, break rules, build fast culture years ago, I'm pretty sure most AI/Tech companies don't care how many loose their jobs or can't even find jobs, even with a MIT C.S. degree. I like to think those companies that do care will do better, get more contracts, be the winners, but.....
I think full automation of lots of jobs will take longer than most people think. I’ve written about why in past. Having said that, It’s very possible that over next 5-10 years augmentation is the main pattern over automation so that copilots dominate fully autonomous agents or tools.
So, what do companies do with this extra productivity from power users? Get even more productivity from same headcount or cut headcount and invest in other areas (buying market share, advertising, exec payouts, more automation where it works, etc)?
We will see some real unemployment from this process — unknown how much or how bad. It doesn’t have to be massive to destabilize specific economic regions and radicalize political outcomes.
UBI is needed, but it’s not gonna replace a white collar income in any major area — and not gonna be at levels that make it even viable for white collar worker in a major city. And no one is talking about Universal Basic Meaning. When your whole identity is connected to your education and career and your cost of living in a major city is $10-$15k/month or more), $1-$2k in month in UBI leaves you highly depressed and pissed off and ready to break things.
Asking government to solve his at the federal level isn’t gonna work. The foundation model companies and funders have to get serious about driving towards better social outcomes and coordinating on what they build, allow API usage for, celebrate and fund.
We can do things like create AIM (augmentation impact metric) and have companies self report augmentation vs automation with tax credits and cap and trade type credits connected.
Foundation model companies can build systems to monitor and limit the most job destroying uses. It won’t be easy, but it would be smart to maintain a strong middle class if we want US to stay a democracy.
Thanks for the considered reply Tom
Really like the Augmentation-Impact Metric; tracking where AI augments versus automates seems to be the right first step.
I just published two short pieces that pick up your “Universal Basic Meaning” thread: even with solid AIM scores and a healthy UBI, Viktor Frankl's 'existential vacuum' emerges when work-identity fades.
My takeaway is a two-track solution:
an automation dividend feeding UBI to keep the lights on,
and parallel investment in UBM—local creativity labs, care networks, and time-banks—to keep the human spirit on.
Same productivity surplus, two complementary rails. Feel free to have a look at my deeper dive if useful.
How can we afford a delivery or a home robot if we’ve been replaced? 🤨
Exactly
The steel man would be that delivery will go from $15-25 an order to $1-2
Hey J, it's a-ok to talk about the destruction of AI, but there has never been a tech innovation from the wheel til...now that has not accelerated the economy which IS jobs. That will happen in stages, never all at once. construction, training, operate, in 000's of locations, that's the trump plan and it needs time.
I think you have to talk about both. That's responsible journalism...and if you're shy on numbers, man, shoot sachs an email.
Feel free to give me your timeline for the decline in human drivers in the USA…
It's a good question. I think the market is segmented. For people who live "in the city" which is probably 5-15miles out of downtown (Dal, Aus, Denv), massive shift, robo's and self driving: in 5 years; 80% automated
For people in the burbs, the transition may be slower because the needs are different. scheds are diff, Commuters, will all self drive...how many will that be? In 5 years, about 40% automated trips
Then we have industry...short and long haul carriers,
Short...massive disruption...100% ground del will be automated, the disrupter is Drone...
the long haul is the biggest beneficiary but...the machines will be 100% reliable in 2-3 years...politics is going to push this out 5-8 years for full automation...the fill in time will be manned units but with wide time on duty windows, 12 hours gets you from KC to DENV...there is NO ONE there in the middle of the night...my kid went to college 20 hrs away...It's a lazy drive!! :)
that's how I break it down.
The factor which is also not in the mix is the investment and replacement rate for everyone of the currently garaged vehicles.
my thought
[edit] i think there will be a direct relationship of some kind between the replacement rates of vehicles, the market options when they trade/buy, and the current uptake in the uber/robo and tesla numbers which show the total market of trips, against each of the contenders uptake, there is a formula in there and ChatGTFO can prob figure it out...
replacement rate is a variable.
And timeline for SDR removals, contact center agent removal, etc. it’s not just when do we get driverless cars to replace taxi drivers. If that’s it, then some of them would migrate to other jobs like trucking. However they can’t if trucking is being replaced. Now look at all sectors that have AI productivity, it means less Full Time Equivalent (FTE) time required. I’ve sold tech for decades and I have been a part of many of the waves. It has created new jobs, yes. However people had time to migrate to them and clear view of where to go to get them.
"t if trucking is being replaced."
I think we have a lot more time than the pundits are proffering....
Trucking...replace trucking...
repeat that on the way to work this morning...
In 1994, every home in America, apartment, business, store, and an other gathering place of people, this item open the world, these were "gateway to prosperity"...
a yellow pages and a telephone book***...
trucks will be here for a bit.
***some folks may want to google these items, or ref the smithsoniam search bar...
Keep in mind I’m just saying 25% of the jobs in any given sector will be replaced which would be as bad as Great Depression. To see what’s going on in trucking in TX, check this out https://www.autoweek.com/news/a64781232/autonomous-trucks-texas-aurora-innovation/
I keep coming back to a core insight: people already own the biggest corporation in America - the government. Instead of letting private entities capture all the productivity gains from AI and automation while displacing workers, why shouldn't government compete directly and own these key technologies?
Think about it practically: when Figure Robots can work 24/7 for under $1/hour, and those productivity gains flow to private shareholders, we get exactly what you're describing - massive job displacement with concentrated wealth. But if government owned and operated these technologies, those same productivity gains could fund robust UBI and maintain the consumer demand that makes the whole system work. If we automate away hundreds of millions of jobs without a plan for maintaining purchasing power, who exactly will buy the products these ultra-efficient systems produce? The deflationary spiral becomes inevitable.
The "Universal Basic Meaning" insight hits hard too. Traditional UBI proposals of $1-2k monthly can't support $10-15k cost of living anyway. But government ownership of productive AI could fund something more substantial while creating new forms of meaningful work around collectively-owned technologies.
Rather than hoping private companies self-regulate through "augmentation impact metrics," democratic ownership eliminates the conflict of interest entirely. When people collectively own the robots and AI, the incentive shifts from maximizing job displacement to maximizing shared prosperity.
I understand that this is pushing away from capitalism and towards socialism, but perhaps this is the right time for it? The resistance you describe - industry pressure to stay quiet, street protests against Waymo - suggests we're approaching a social inflection point. We can either steer this democratically or watch private interests concentrate unprecedented productive power while society fragments.
What are your thoughts on government as a direct competitor in these spaces rather than a regulator?
What about changing from UBI to UBE for equity that provides monthly dividends? Does that change your view?
Great article - would love to see more of these!
And the missing piece is that government will tax robots like employees. The public will like that even though it raises the cost of products. And it will help fund the ever growing social services voters demand.
The price increase concern assumes we're not already paying. Corporate taxes, which fund none of the displaced workers, already pass costs to consumers. But, well-structured public enterprises, like India's largest PSUs, actually outperform comparable private firms while channeling profits back to citizens. The issue isn't public vs. private - it's scale, governance, and strategic focus. Rather than hope private AI companies self-regulate while passing tax costs to us anyway, why not own the productive capacity directly?
Employees Aren’t Soda Cans
We don’t talk enough about how companies treat employees like soda cans. People are brought in to build, to carry the load, and to keep things running. But once they’re no longer seen as useful, they’re tossed aside. It happens quietly, sometimes brutally, and far too often.
The people who are most vulnerable those at the bottom or considered the weakest links are almost always the first to be let go. And the same people just keep getting rotated through the system. Fired here. Hired there. Then laid off again. There’s no long-term stability, no real investment. Just cycles.
What’s the point of all this if we’re not actually developing people? If we’re not giving them a chance to grow, adapt, and thrive in the changing economy?
If companies truly believe in their people, then they need to start putting money where their values are. That means funding education and retraining. That means creating real pathways for workers to learn new skills when their jobs are taken by automation or technology.
We need to rethink how unemployment works too. If layoffs are going to happen on a massive scale, the system needs to provide at least five years of support. Not just short-term relief, but real, meaningful assistance. Enough to help people re-educate, get back on their feet, and find a future.
People always say that new opportunities will come with new technology. Maybe that’s true. But if people are broke, stressed, and stuck in survival mode, how are they supposed to chase those opportunities?
If companies care about ethics and long-term growth, this is the bare minimum. They can’t keep hiring fast and firing faster just to protect a quarterly balance sheet. They need to think in decades, not quarters.
This isn’t just about business. It’s about people. And people aren’t disposable. They aren’t soda cans. It’s time we stop treating them like they are.
I think this will be okay. If AI displaces jobs that were drudge work, no one liked to do it anyway. If AI replaces white collar work, then it was likely too expensive anyway. People can still buy custom handmade furniture, but it's more expensive than if a machine made it. If the 10-20% chance that AI ushers in a world of abundance happens, then we will still create art, play games, and compete in sports. If the 80-90% chance that AI doesn't create abundance happens, then there will be an explosion in entrepreneurship, which will create new jobs.
As an aside, I see the movement to ban phones in school as related to people's rejection of AI. Technophobia is problematic and should be cautioned. Whether its students and young people, or people of the workforce, we need to the do the hard thing as a society of teaching people to adopt and work with technology. There's pros and cons with everything and an abstinence-only approach doesn't work.
Jason this format suits you, more of this and less of the one liner X post incontinence please.
A world where a significant amount of work vanishes means that central planning is essential to placate the masses, who despite the bountiful 'stuff'' really won't be happy or fulfilled no matter how many treats they are given. Constant policy tweaks will be required to get ahead of the frustration of being locked out of meaningful work, and if you do create something original, being immediately mimicked and ripped off by predatory AI. Resentment will build and opportunistic politicians will leap at their chance.
Comparisons by pro AI boosters are always made about the Industrial revolution in Britain and that people adapted and found jobs, but actually most didn't, not in civilian life anyway. The French Revolutionary Wars and then the Napoleonic wars, were raging at the time, (1792 - 1815) consuming massive amounts of the unemployed. The Royal Navy records are full of accounts of destitute weavers (being the main victim of that wave of Industrialisation) being hauled aboard, others to the Army or arms factories.
Throughout the 1800's European powers used mass conscription into the military to help offset disruption caused by the ongoing Industrial revolution, building social cohesion, keeping the people regimented and responsive to Governance as the old social contract was dissolved; Prussia, France, Russia, Spain, Austria- Hungarian Empire, etc. As you know this momentum of forces eventually ended up at 1914.
A Neo Soviet future await us.
BTW thanks for the Kurosawa Ikiru recommendation, appreciated.
https://substack.com/@anonymousmediagroup/note/c-128280600?r=26rl6r&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
@JCal I have idea I’d like your opinion on. What about UBE where everyone has some equity paying monthly dividends from robotic work. The robots can be owned by gov and value generated can go towards paying for social programs. Entrepreneurs can gain access to them by using innovative programs from gov or VC etc incubators that own their own robots. It could create a way for people to leverage the collective productivity gains not just for a few corporations but for the masses.
I believe that if we have gov robot ownership they might use for war vs production. Then in peace time for production and compete with personally owned robots causing conflict and potential riots. Might need two diff classes of robots. Also if fed does this, massive more layoffs in army, navy, marines, Air Force etc. It’s a lot to think through.
JCal - I want to say a heat-felt Thank You! So many of us know what you are saying is true but hear “stop being a Doomsdayer”. We know this is different. The Great Depression saw 24.5% unemployment. Estimates we will see 20-30% job destruction from AI. So we could be facing an extended challenge. Only way to address would be to identify new jobs and income opportunities and up-skill people to take advantage of them. Some say there are new AI jobs but those might be 1:100 jobs replaced. So we need to discuss. Also, it’s not like you can leave help desk job and become trucker as that is getting replaced by robotics. Where are the jobs? Where can people migrate to be productive members of society? Most people listening to the pod aren’t lazy. They want to build great companies and make money and have a sense of self worth. We aren’t discussing because there aren’t any good answers right now. I pray that changes soon and we collectively see a clear path forward to enable both AI/robotics and new income generation by workers, not just small number of owners. Otherwise, I fear more global unrest. Lastly, does this mean we should invest in aerospace and defense stocks?
Next generation will evolve into Homo Ludens.
Because it's going to mean more than just UBI, it's going to require the complete reinvention of society, e.g. probably the end of capitalism and maybe even some form of communism (but reinterpreted because there is no longer labour). That's too hard for most in the US to get their heads around, and probably same for most of the world.
What if workers are given equity in all roles? What if that equity provides dividends monthly? Would that change your view?
Good on you for thinking of possible options but unfortunately I don't see how it will work. Businesses won't need workers, they'll have AI and robots. How do you divide the equity? What do those starting their careers do? Why do we need anyone running businesses, AI and robots can and will do it all? Sure it won't happen overnight, but it's going to happen faster than most expect (it's exponential). We really need our smartest and brightest (and fairest and kindest) people working on how it's all going to work.
I think by definition, you and I might be part of that category since we are at least talking about it and pitching creative solutions to solve. It’s what startup founders do.
Most college students and recent grads know AI has already consolidated their jobs; 3 jobs, now 1; young people send out 100s of resumes that for the most part go nowhere. Only 5 years ago, a smart college grade with a Computer Science degree was almost guaranteed a 100K starting salary somewhere! Now my son (not a C.S. major) tells me the C.S. majors are deeply worried about finding any job, anywhere as they know all too well what AI has done to their jobs. Do the AI/tech companies have any moral responsibility to care that they are destroying entire industries and/or job functions. I believe YES, but having worked int he hustle hustle startup, break rules, build fast culture years ago, I'm pretty sure most AI/Tech companies don't care how many loose their jobs or can't even find jobs, even with a MIT C.S. degree. I like to think those companies that do care will do better, get more contracts, be the winners, but.....