Oh, don't even blame the machines.

Blame the complacency of the people who, instead of using technology for a leg up on Maslow's hierarchy, opted to join the livestock operating at the base.

Tech could liberate and support improvement, but we see this ersatz "Progress" setting up a techno elite presiding over a global plantation.

I absolutely don't buy this defeatist attitude toward technological advancement. There are plenty of things that can ruin human civilization, and AI seems like an unlikely one to me.

I think that really depends on how fast one thinks ai will improve. If tomorrow, self-driving becomes safe enough to deploy, millions of jobs will be lost. Truckers, cabbies, truck stop workers. Then artists, ad agencies, web design, programming, copywriting are already kinda exposed to the 'ai danger'.

Now, whether these jobs are worth saving or not, if it happens suddenly and the market shifts, then millions of unemployed workers will result in a major social unrest.

>millions of jobs will be lost. Truckers, cabbies, truck stop workers

Don't worry. They just hit the same truck. There is still a lot of work to do and, until now, cutting corners didn't help. /s

But none of that will ever happen... right?

/s

You’re taking the article too seriously. It’s more like a satirical what-if sci-fi short story.

Yeah, McSweeney’s digital platform is a satire blog.

The hard copies are great fiction & poetry though.

I find this article brilliantly written. It's unclear to me whether the author is dead serious about the topic and conclusions, or it is supposed to be science fiction with some truths thrown in. I like to think the latter.

McSweeney’s is a literary journal and most of their online content is well-crafted satire

I dont think anyone thinks the article was really written by a robot.

The question is about the nature of the satirical critique. Are they just having fun? Do they think AI is a genuine threat? Are they using AI to critique mass culture?

Not that I'm in the habit of expecting worthy speculative fiction from a literary journal, but even by that standard...

I found it reminiscent of the Screwtape Letters.

In style, sure, I can see that. In substance?

In substance both say "it's not the flashy things everyone writes fiction about that get you, it's the boring same old same old that'll do you in"

that said, I agree wholeheartedly that Lewis is a much better writer!