> You aren't bothered by the fact that making this change in such a sudden way could very well lead to a significant increase in suffering and death of people?

> You aren't bothered by the fact that making this change in such a sudden way could very well lead to a significant increase in suffering and death of people? For reasons unrelated to AI (climate mostly), I think that failing to make this change soon will also lead to a significant increase in suffering. And, precedent leads me to believe that suddenly is the only way we'll ever manage to make it. It's like we're asleep at the wheel with the lane assist on, but no brakes. Maybe waking up is uncomfortable but it's still worth doing. If we don't gain control of the financial abstractions that tell us how to behave sooner or later, we're doomed anyway. I'm not much of an AI enthusiast. It's a useful trinket, and it's fun to extrapolate on where it could go. What I like most about it is that it maybe has the capacity to shock us into collective action in novel ways, because if so, it would be long overdue. It sounds like you're proposing that we attempt to dampen the shock and limit the scope of who ends up unemployed. But technology has been doing this for centuries. A) The point of technology (I think) was to eliminate drudgery. Whenever one group or another spoke up about us having eliminated too much drudgery, we didn't stop. We're now in a position to be eliminating our own jobs. I think it's a little disingenuous to change our tune at this point. Doing so would be admitting that it was never about eliminating drudgery and was instead just about jockeying for position in society. I'm not comfortable with taking that position. I don't want to win, I want to change the game. B) We know what gradual change of this sort looks like. Everybody who is still employed pats the new have-nots on the head and says "sorry 'bout your luck" and smugly moves on into a life where their net worth is now higher than the even more of the plebes. This thing we're doing, it divides us like that. If we must jockey for position in society, then let that position be justified by having done things that help people (which is not what we're doing--it's currently far easier to get ahead by doing more harm than good). > In order to change it, we need to decide to do so as a society. Agreed, but we don't do things like that except in response to change. So if the decision needs to happen, then we aren't helping by withholding the change. So let it be a discontinuity, a shock to the system. Let it happen so fast that we have no choice but to collectively change our ways. Because however hard that's going to be now, is only going to be harder in the future when we have even more people to harm with the fallout that will come with updating our obsolete practices. Ripping the bandaid off suddenly and soon is the most ethical choice.