That would assume that AI is truly capable of making a lot of jobs obsolete... but from my current perspective, that premise is nothing more than a marketing gimmick used by AI companies.
this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2026
238 points (97.2% liked)
Fuck AI
7452 readers
1786 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
But the important part is that idiotic managers and shareholders buy it. Although they might have caused their own bankruptcy, people has lost their job, and the demand of labour is not even staying the same. It has caused unemployment after all.
Many of those jobs lost to AI were going away anyway. AI is just the excuse management can use with less backlash currently. They have a bogeyman so they're gonna use it.
The AI bubble bursting is capable of destroying a bunch of jobs simply by wrecking the economy.
You really only need to replace 10% of jobs. There are talks of replacing software devs with AI. And developing is one of the more complex tasks in office environment. Imagine 10% of the country rioting. Thats suddendly millions of people. You dont have sufficient police or prisons to handle that.
During the great depression 1/4 of working Americans were without jobs. This lasted for several years. The average earnings fell by 40% for families.
Guess what? No revolution.
So unless we are looking at more than a quarter of the jobs being replaced it isn't going to make any changes at all honestly.
That is what history shows tends to happen.
France yes, the US, no.
https://historycollection.com/20-times-americans-rebelled-against-their-government/
Ahem. The US government has a habit of stamping that shit out but it has happened plenty of times in US history.
load more comments
(7 replies)
I want this to be true, but history seems to me to show that most people just tolerate increasingly worse conditions indefinitely. Exploited/oppressed people rising up seems the exception.
Oh? You are a historian then?
No, my academic background is political science, not history, but they overlap. 'The exception that proves the rule' is generally trite, but I think if holds true in the case. Part of why revolutions are studied is that they're rare. Most modern human history is a story of unequal distribution of wealth and the exploitation and coercion required to uphold that, and the moments in history where that bubbles into revolution are rare. It's easy to say the French revolted in 1789, but that ignores centuries of the ancien régime remaining in power.
Conditions won't just deteriorate until an eventual revolution. A revolution itself generally can't be planned, but successful ones take a lot of groundwork.
This is a perfect example of why our whole global economic system is so backwards. When you think about it for more than 2 seconds, an unemployment crisis makes no sense, if we have more laborers than we have jobs, that means all the work is getting done, that should be a good thing. But instead we've tied individual worth to our capacity to create value for shareholders.
Some societies have tied basic needs like health care and housing to employment so people will fight over scraps.
Even some countries that had a decent safety net have had it eroded over time. Forget UBI, i suspect we are heading back to poor houses and people being jailed for stealing loaves of bread. Empathy and social cohesiveness have been under attack for years and it's showing everywhere. People are being encouraged to punch down and many are happy to comply.
I'm not sure.
In the past, mass unemployment and poverty and hunger caused violence because young parents had to watch their children suffer. Today, young people aren't having kids, and by the time some of them do have kids they're getting too old for explosions of violence.
I expect suicides, isolated mass shootings, and overdoses - the same stuff we've been having.
You could also argue their lack of children means they have less to lose. Same with their lack of wealth.
There's a reason the US government threw tons of money at returning soldiers from WWII to start a family and buy a house. You aren't going to start/join a revolution if it means you might lose your family or house that you've invested in and is gaining value.
load more comments
(2 replies)
And the boomers enjoy watching their children suffer. It bUiLdS cHaRaCtEr.
load more comments
(1 replies)
If ICE agents storming our streets didn't prompt resistance, then no.
The reality is the USA population doesn't have the capacity to fight back. People are struggling to survive day-to-day, and most don't own a home. They definitely don't run farms to grow their own food; as families did during the peasant revolutions and the American Revolution. Factor in the individualist nature of the USA after years of divisive propaganda and social media addiction. I mean, people can't even initiate dates without going to an app; What makes us think folks will unite together for illegal riots?
Factor in the surveillance networks; the spyware... I just don't think it's feasible. Now, lone-wolf attacks a la Mangione, the killing of Kirk, warehouse burnings, attempted assassinations... THAT has been shown to work. As for how many more we have willing to sacrifice their security to chip away at the corruption in this country, only time will tell.
If ICE agents storming our streets didn’t prompt resistance, then no.
Did you forget the people launching a general strike after ICE gunned down protesters in Minneapolis? They got Border Patrol commander Bovino to resign and ICE to retreat to pre-surge levels, and since then we've seen resignations of Border Patrol Chief Michael Banks, Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, and National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent.
It's not mass violence, but there has certainly been resistance. The violence only comes when people are too desperate and impatient for peaceful means, right now they still have jobs and housing and healthcare and believe there might be a future where Republicans are voted out. Once those things are taken away, though, no amount of surveillance will stop the violence.
The reality is the US population has been manipulated and beat down. Most people are broken and useless plus a good number of people who might of fought back are overdosed/dead or stuck in our penal system.
Our police force has been militarized and regularly destroys families through the War on Drugs aka the minority genocide.
Is life really that horrible? For a lot of people the answer is yes. I have lost count to how many people I have lost to violence and drugs.
However, there are a bunch of people that are either doing fine or have accepted their role in this learned helplessness and they will fight anyone who tries to change the status quo. They don't want change even if it could improve their life if they risk losing what they have.
Yes.
Because if there’s no other option available, that’s what’s going to happen. When they can’t afford the lovely little distractions anymore they will grab a fucking brick.
Oh, no there's always the option of mass suffering and fascist disruptions to anything resembling democracy.
Remember:
At any given point, society is only three days worth of food away from complete anarchy.
Edit: correction: the actual quote is:
Every society is three meals away from chaos
load more comments
(3 replies)
Butlerian Jihad? I'm skeptical.
The "technology" to mentally manipulate and control populations improves as well. PR, advertisment, propaganda, whatever you wanna call it, is getting stronger and stronger. Social media has trained people to act in very predictable patters that are easily exploited.
Because it is relevant:
Unemployed individuals are roughly 60% to 87% more likely to die by suicide compared to employed peers, with some studies estimating that up to 1 in 10 global suicides are directly attributable to labor underutilization (job loss or underemployment).
A study using data from 175 countries between 1991 and 2017 showed that for every 1% increase in unemployment, there was a 2–3% increase in suicide rates in those aged 30–59 years, suggesting that if such an increase in unemployment could be prevented then so would the corresponding increase in suicides.
Yep. The only reason it doesn't happen is because people have to go to work on Monday. Remember when people finally had time to protest during COVID?
And now the situation is exponentially worse!
I am all for the rule of law and a civil peaceful society working for the common good. Big believer in social democracy as the best compromise we have found so far. But the truth is it's been gutted and attacked. Democracy is under assault. Our society is under assault and being divided and conquered.
AI in this context really just a proxy for the worst abuses of capitalism. It's stealing the fruits of human labour for the benefit of the few and trying to wind back the pay and conditions we have fought to enjoy. The LLMs themselves are a neutral thing and the change they bring is real and difficult but not the end of the world. People do need to wake the fuck up though. The irregularities of AI financing are possibly going to bring about a massive financial crash that will wipe out a lot of people's savings, crash the economy and create huge hardship. This time we need to insist on justice and consequences and we need the victims to be protected, not the criminals.
Yes. And let it come. When legislation fails, this is what comes next. The world needs a proper reset for the oligarchy.
No. The docile sheep will make sounds but ultimately still tolerate being herded...
There's a conflict index which predicts conflicts based on whether the population is able to feed, house themselves, find a spouse (think cultures with multiple wives) or find a job. In short, civil war is 3 missed meals away. This is espacially dangerous with this new generation not being able to provide for children. Nothing to lose.
Once people get desperate enough, probably. Once people are actual starving. But by then it will be too late.
All the people need is bread and circuses
Oh it'll be a circus alright
No work --> no money --> no bread, I think that's what it's getting at
There are only nine meals between mankind and anarchy.
I would be very interested in any real studies of job losses due to AI. I believe much of it is a hoax. Companies just use this in their PR communication as the "reason" to let go people. The real deal might be more that there are many companies which want to cut costs as departments always tend to grow but couldn't fire anybody due to good labor laws - I am excluding explicitly the US here. The AI reason is still accepted as it is relatively new. As soon as regulations step up, and transparency increases it might become public that companies are lying about the let go reasons...just my thoughts here. Have as said not really seen any study around this.
These most recent round of layoffs have nothing to do with AI and everything to do with over hiring. AI is just a convenient excuse.
The US is an experiment in apathy.
They would literally have to starve to death en masse before they try anything they aren't allowed to do by their owners
I sure hope so.
Not likely. Or it will be violence against other workers.
Not in the US. The masses will just keep rallying behind billionaires, believing the wolf will help them.
In my view the test for them was Columbine and the many school shootings afterwards. It is human instinct to protect our young and it transcends politics or faith. Every mother and father should have been marching. If people couldn't act as a nation on that they can't act on anything less.
It's over for them. The challenge for the rest of us is not to go down the same path.
Nobody is “rallying” behind billionaires. That’s something you just made up.
I am willing and able. But I won't be one of the first, I dont want to die alone like a fool x)
Sure, why not?
view more: next ›