Human Workers

Chapter 1 from Artificial Intelligence: A Pandora’s Box

People work to earn a livelihood, which in turn provides for their needs for housing, food, clothing, transportation, and caring for their loved ones. But people also work because they have goals to accomplish in their chosen field and satisfaction to be gained, maybe teaching kids how to read, or helping sick people, or taking care of a herd of unruly cows. As a retired piano tuner/technician, I can say that hardly anything in my professional life gave me as much satisfaction as sitting at a freshly tuned nine-foot grand and striking a few chords, the vibrations resonating through my chest.

All kinds of occupations have been carried out by humans since the earliest times. Archaeologists are still discovering the products of those early occupations—works of art carved in mammoth tusk ivory, imprints of hands profiled on cave walls, remnants of houses built on stilts over prehistoric lakes, burials of early humans with graves containing prized possessions like pierced shells, animal teeth, and ornaments colored with red ochre dating back 100,000 to 130,000 years. Even earlier discoveries are regularly uncovered. These were people wandering the forests or jungle picking up fallen nuts or climbing trees for ripe fruit. As appetites became more sophisticated, eating might have required specialized flint daggers and copper tools in capturing animals to roast over fire. Then tools made by farmers, archers, and metalworkers became more specialized professions while cylinder seals developed by record keepers and administrators documented words over 4,000 years ago.

One wonders what kind of grave goods will be found one hundred thousand years from now. Will it be rusting fragments of a robot, its mechanism long since gone dark, its accomplishments unknown? Will anyone be around to find it?

In the fevered minds of AI techs, the future is a world where artificial intelligence augments human intelligence and amplifies creativity, acting as intuitive partners in science, medicine, and art, a time when vast computational power can eradicate diseases, model climate solutions, and solve complex systemic problems. This work would shift from rigid programming to dynamic systems that can independently perceive, navigate, and learn from their environments. For researchers, a deeper, long-term dream is unlocking the mathematical and algorithmic nature of human thought and consciousness itself—a dream roughly 400 years old as a formal mathematical pursuit, while its philosophical roots stretch back over 2,000 years to ancient Greek logic. Or further.

We have used tools for tens of thousands of years, in our hands or at our control to accomplish work for us. Now we have artificial intelligence, the first tool that thinks and carries out work for itself.

With the modern advance of this quest, we now stand at the threshold of a new kind of human existence. With the introduction of AI, we’ve started to see in real time how this technology will impact human life. This is where the rubber hits the road, as they said way back in the mid-20^th century. By 2030, AI and automation could displace up to 92 million jobs globally.

Techies rush on to say that, oh, but wait! Even more jobs than that will be created by AI. No worries!

But what kind of jobs? Will AI help employ the average human with his/her IQ of 85 to 115? The short answer: No. Witness the shift to self-checkout, self-sign-in at computer screens at your friendly medical clinic. Any jobs held by people of average IQ in the AI industry would focus on implementation, training, and operation rather than complex algorithmic design. These roles prioritize practical skills, empathy, communication, and domain knowledge over advanced mathematics or computer science. [1]

Aldous Huxley envisioned a version of this reality in his novel, Brave New World. In the 1932 novel, World Controller Mustapha Mond explicitly explains that absolute stability requires controlling brainpower. If the entire population were highly intelligent, they would quickly become bored of their jobs, demand change, and incite civil war. By limiting the intelligence of the lower castes, the state ensures they are perfectly happy in their roles and incapable of rebelling. To ensure the right mix of a controlled population, the government uses mechanized, state-run factories and scientific processes, such as the Bokanovsky process (for mass-cloning lower-caste embryos), artificial fertilization, and artificial wombs to intentionally restrict their mental capacity (and physical size) so they are capable of performing only repetitive, menial tasks without becoming bored or questioning their roles. The intellectual elite possess the highest mental acuity and act as the scientists, writers, and administrators. Alphas represent the peak of unadulterated human capacity, while Betas are engineered to be only slightly less intelligent so they don’t threaten Alpha leadership. Gammas, Deltas, & Epsilons, the laboring masses, are chemically and genetically stunted during the embryonic stage.

It seems we may not need a whole new world order for these various classes to come into being. Rather, current populations, at least in the United States and with the increasing help of artificial intelligence, are already sorting themselves.

Industry solutions to loss of jobs suggested so far by developers of artificial intelligence include investment in rapid, accessible training programs (e.g., Google Career Certificates, technical bootcamps) to transition workers into high-demand fields like IT, cybersecurity, and data analysis; development of government programs similar to trade adjustment assistance; offering wage insurance to support workers forced into lower-paying roles; and focusing career shifts toward roles requiring high empathy, creativity, and complex decision-making, such as healthcare (therapists, nurses) and skilled trades.[2]

*Courtesy https://x.com/FXMC1957/ status/1843916843087458721*

But wait! Didn’t this happen before? Short answer: Yes. Industrialization transformed America and most of Europe from a rural, agrarian society into an urban, industrial powerhouse between roughly 1876 and 1900. But early mechanization hit before 1876. On October 9, 1779, English textile workers in Manchester rebelled against new automated machinery. The earliest widespread riots explicitly targeting mechanization were the Luddite Riots in England, which began in earnest in 1811. Highly skilled textile artisans, facing job loss and reduced wages from the sudden introduction of automated weaving looms and knitting frames, violently destroyed machinery under the mythical leader “General Ludd.” The Luddites were then violently suppressed by the British government, which deployed thousands of troops to mill towns, passed laws making machine-breaking a capital offense punishable by death, and executed or exiled dozens of protesters to penal colonies in Australia.

On the upside, the so-called “Industrial Revolution” created national markets through massive railroad expansion, triggered mass production, fueled rapid urbanization, and fostered a new, diverse working class while elevating technology like electricity and steel. That sounds great, and for a lot of reasons, it was. But those changes meant the roughly twelve-thousand year old tradition of rural lifestyles in farming and self-sufficiency virtually disappeared. Alongside that shift, high levels of social cohesion, access to common land for resources, a slower pace of life attuned to nature, and strong family integration also disappeared, all qualities of life supportive of human satisfaction. Now, most people residing in a rural location amid the joys of Nature must be retired, independently wealthy, or willing and able to commute to a town job (which involves new levels of expense). This transformation also brought significant challenges, including severe economic inequality, massive pollution, political corruption (crony capitalism), and labor struggles.[3]

Corporations did this again in the U.S. a century later, in two stages: key manufacturing jobs migrated to Mexico and Asia starting in the 1960s/70s, while a larger chunk of jobs moved in the 1990s by shifting U.S. manufacturing to Third World countries where workers could be employed for a few bucks a week, currently $3 to $6.40 per hour and without those pesky labor laws or organized labor unions. Major U.S. corporations making this move included Apple, General Electric, IBM, Nike, and Walmart. Over five million U.S. manufacturing jobs were lost between 1998 and 2021 due to trade deficits, devastating local economies and decreasing worker opportunities. This outsourcing of manufacturing created massive reliance on global supply chains, leaving the U.S. vulnerable to supply shortages, which were exposed during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Now some of the same corporations are rapidly adopting AI including tech giants Microsoft, Google (Alphabet), Amazon, Nvidia, and Meta, currently integrating AI into their core products and infrastructure. Other fast-movers adopting AI to automate operations, enhance customer service, or optimize supply chains include Klarna, Salesforce, Walmart, JPMorgan Chase, and General Motors. While high potential for savings is expected in certain industries including retail, consumer staples distribution, transportation, and real estate management, the long-term goal for many corporations is to drive down production costs, leading to a potential “$1 trillion a year” in savings for businesses.

Don’t kid yourself. Corporate leaders expect a significant cut in operational costs—often by 5–20%—but generally do not lower customer prices. Instead, businesses are using AI for “dynamic pricing”[4] to tailor costs to individual willingness-to-pay, aiming to increase profit margins. Never forget the primary corporate objective is generally to maximize shareholder value (or wealth) over the long term. Companies are focusing on using AI for “next best experience” strategies to increase customer satisfaction by 15-20% while cutting service costs, primarily aiming to boost their own profitability rather than reducing customer costs.

We have to face the reality. Many people will lose their jobs as AI advances through the layers of our culture. Already we see a growing class of tech billionaires and even a trillionaire riding the wave of artificial intelligence. It’s an ongoing argument whether we as humans will truly benefit.

[1] Coreen, David. “AI Job Replacement Statistics (2025-2030): Industries Most Affected,” DAVRON Feb 12, 2026. https://www.davron.net/ai-job-replacement-statistics-2025-2030/

[2] Note that an unspoken admission in this rationale is that AI functions without empathy or complex decision making capability.

[3] More information at https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-ushistory1/chapter/the-impact-of-early-industrialization/

[4] a strategy that adjusts prices in real-time to match the maximum amount a specific customer is willing to spend at any given moment

From my booklet, Artificial Intelligence: A Pandora’s Box

The Luddites Were Right

On March 11, 1811, hand loom weavers swarmed the streets of Arnold, Nottingham in the dark of night. They broke into textile factories equipped with the latest technologies, smashed pieces of factory equipment and burned the mills. Over the next five years, the movement spread throughout England. Industrialists invested in safe rooms inside their factories to protect themselves from attack.

The movement died in its tracks when the government stepped in with mass trials, with over thirty men ultimately executed or transported to penal colonies in Australia. The government went on to pass legislation making equipment destruction a capital offense.[1]

The Luddites didn’t start with violence. Rather, like regular hardworking people, they expected their industrialist employers to make nice as new machines were brought in to replace workers. The employers didn’t bother because nobody made them. They found that higher profits fit quite nicely into their fattening pocketbooks.

The Luddite eruption speaks to a trend that ticked up to light speed in the twentieth century. More and more workers are forced to find new careers. No one could argue that this has been a bad thing. Gone are the backbreaking labors of producing food, clothing, and life’s many necessities. We have refrigeration, vacuum cleaners, washing machines, automobiles, and iPhones. But for each of these inventions, there has been a devastating impact on jobs.

Without the sense of accomplishment and self-respect that a job well done provides, modern people face an unexpected dilemma. Latest job forecasts say if you want a job in the next twenty years, you’ll need to plan for one of the following careers: registered nurse, retail salesperson, home health aide, personal care aide, office clerk, food service, customer service representative, truck driver, laborers and movers in freight, or post-secondary teaching.

Jobs that have no future include farming and ranching, postal workers, sewing machine operators, telephone operators including answering services, and data entry.[2] Some might argue that even these forecasts are overly optimistic. Consider this May 2017 report from Pew Research:

Machines are eating humans’ jobs talents. And it’s not just about jobs that are repetitive and low-skill. Automation, robotics, algorithms and artificial intelligence (AI) in recent times have shown they can do equal or sometimes even better work than humans who are dermatologists, insurance claims adjusters, lawyers, seismic testers in oil fields, sports journalists and financial reporters, psychological testers, crew members on guided missile destroyers, retail salespeople, and border patrol agents. Moreover, there is growing anxiety that technology developments on the near horizon will crush the jobs of the millions who drive cars and trucks, analyze medical tests and data, perform middle management chores, dispense medicine, trade stocks and evaluate markets, fight on battlefields, perform government functions, and even replace those who program software – that is, the creators of algorithms.[3]

Observers from all sides are split pretty much 50-50 on whether the result of increased technology in the workplace will be a vast reduction in available jobs or a burgeoning growth of new jobs. One could argue that for every robot providing legal services, there will be a robot repair person lingering in the hallway. Yet present-day robotics in factories don’t require a repair person for every job lost to a former factory worker, and there’s no reason to believe this would change in the future.

Especially since robotic repairs are increasingly performed primarily by robots.

Complicating the labor marketplace of the future is the rapid rate of change in our technology. Retraining workers for new jobs, some argue, can’t keep up with the rate of change. John Sniadowski, a systems architect and participant in the Pew Study noted:

By the time the training programs are widely available, the required skills will no longer be required. The whole emphasis of training must now be directed towards personal life skills development rather than the traditional working career-based approach.[4]

Whether or not education and training programs can keep up with the rate of technological change, none of that addresses the more personal issues of job loss. Does a former factory worker yank his kids out of school to move to another city? What about trying to sell the family home in a city that has become a ghost town? What about the aging parents who live down the street and depend on you for care?

What about that skill set so laboriously learned now heaped in the trash bin as a machine produces a crude facsimile?

Personal losses mount up as jobs disappear, even if free training and relocation costs are provided—which mostly they aren’t. Loss of community means, in many cases, loss of identity. Who are you in a new town where nobody knows your name?

The success of Donald Trump in playing these emotions depended on his promise to workers to get their old jobs back. In just a few months since he took office, it’s become increasingly clear that those were empty promises. Coal jobs aren’t coming back. Factory jobs aren’t coming back. It doesn’t matter how many grandstanding press conferences Trump holds.

In opposition to Trump’s promises to turn back the clock, the harsh realities are that not only is automation and not immigration increasingly displacing America’s middle and lower-class workers but also that the government must step in to provide relief. While conservatives fervently argue that shrinking government will reduce taxes and therefore provide much needed economic relief for Americans, the opposite is true. Government is the only entity that can solve the problem of job loss resulting from increased automation. Government must grow in order to accomplish such a gargantuan task.

Luddites didn’t hate machinery nor did they wish to turn back the clock to eliminate machinery. They recognized that a reduction in body-breaking labor served people well. At its core, their movement hoped to bring workers together into unions that could bargain for better working conditions, protection in cases of sickness, and in general promote solidarity among workers. This in turn would offset the power of capital’s investment in machines instead of workers and its disregard for labor as a disposable element in production.

As noted in a recent Smithsonian article:

People of the time recognized all the astonishing new benefits the Industrial Revolution conferred, but they also worried, as Carlyle put it in 1829, that technology was causing a “mighty change” in their “modes of thought and feeling. Men are grown mechanical in head and in heart, as well as in hand.” Over time, worry about that kind of change led people to transform the original Luddites into the heroic defenders of a pre-technological way of life.[5]

The same anxiety led to the ‘back to the land’ movement of the 1960s and ‘70s where college-educated young people left the cities to occupy remote rural farms where they consulted with old timers and publications like the Foxfire books about how to farm, tend animals, and put in sufficient stores to survive the winter in makeshift homes.

Once traditional knowledge is lost, whether it’s how to grow and preserve food or how to build hand looms to knit stockings, how many millennia would it take to re-invent those skills? What repository of knowledge exists, outside of libraries which require literacy and—even more fragile—digital information, that can transfer thousands of years of human learning to the next generation?

Once we rely on automatons to build our homes, provide our medication dosages, and produce our crops, what happens when they fail?

At its core, the Luddite movement sought protection for workers so that in the case of advancing technology, mechanisms installed by the industrialist and enforced by the government would provide for the workers’ welfare. Whether retraining, retirement, or a modest stipend in unemployment income, some provision must be made to care for those displaced by technology. After all, machines vastly increase profits by speeding up production. Some of those profits should benefit the former workers instead of lining the pockets of the already wealthy.

The discussion needs to be had. We need to understand that corporate investment in advancing automation does not necessarily mean that it rests on the workers alone to solve their under- or unemployment problems. They didn’t cause the problem. Corporations should be taxed at rates sufficient to provide better options for cast-off workers. Increased profits resulting from automation should automatically be taxed at a very high rate to offset worker losses from displacement.

Modern culture needs to recognize that as we move deeper into a post-industrial, automated world, increasing numbers of people will not have jobs as we understand them today. Political leaders are sorely needed who will clearly voice this reality and put forth meaningful alternatives to ridiculous and empty proposals like Trump’s promise to bring back coal jobs.

~~~

More discussion on this:

Michael Coren’s article “Luddites have been getting a bad rap for 200 years. But, turns out, they were right.” at Quartz

David Auerbach’s article: “It’s OK To Be a Luddite.” at Slate

Bryan Appleyard’s article: “The new Luddites: why former digital prophets are turning against tech” at New Statesman

Paul Krugman’s column: “Sympathy for the Luddites” in the New York Times

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

[2] https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https%3A//www.forbes.com/pictures/efkk45fmhd/the-jobs-with-the-brightest-future-2/&refURL=https%3A//www.google.com/&referrer=https%3A//www.google.com/

[3] http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/05/03/the-future-of-jobs-and-jobs-training/

[4] Ibid

[5] http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-really-fought-against-264412/