Raw LLM Responses

Oh nice to see some politician (even if I'm not in the US), properly highlight this, is not a matter of "could", because it's already happening. I was part of a big corporation, already in 2019 during a summit (meant for national/regional managers from around the world to meet in person), the main talking point was AI, one of the C suits exemplified the whole stick with this example: "In few years AI automated procedures will allow us to sit on a beach sipping cocktail rather than work" I asked a simple question: "yes but if I'm a company, why should I want to pay you to sit on a beach and sip cocktails? Your job as well as mine is even easier to be replaced by automation" The conversation ended, I got no answer In early 2023 I was invited to participate to a limited meeting with the C-suite, the company innovation director and a couple of high level HR persons, with me were another handful or directors and managers who tended to be on the active side of conversations about workforce, what the C-suite wanted to know was how the employees would react to a heavy push (in meetings, communication, marketing/branding) for AI integration. They wanted to use the 1966 strikes teachers made against the use of calculators in schools as an example of communication to send out to employees... me and another manager brought up the issue "Teachers weren't picketing because they were afraid to be replaced by calculators, they did so because they were afraid kids would learn even less math, in our case the kids are the product, our employees will be afraid for their jobs, not for what they produce, that communication can work for investors and MAYBE clients, but is horrible for employees" Our concerns weren't really addressed in the broader meeting, but afterwards the CEO invited us both to a brief and private conversation, it lasted like 10 minutes his point was "I appreciate how invested you both are on these topics and value your feedback, but I think you really don't understand and appreciate our vision for the future, thanks, bye" End of the story, in 2024 the corporation laid off roughly 600 employees, mostly in EU and US, roughly half of those were employees I was responsible of, I was asked to help laying them off in the span of 3 months, I refused to do so (too little time, not enough actual financial reasons since profitability at the time was above 25%), I was put on a paid gardening leave and the company proceeded. Were all these jobs replaced by AI, of course not, roughly 30% of them thou were directly replaced by AI tools that could do the same job (albeit with lower quality) for an infinitesimal fraction of the cost. Sorry for the personal and lengthy example, but I still feel horrible for the folks, but most of all, unlike with the industrial revolution, that still required a relatively big workforce to operate, the end goal here is different, the number of folks needed to "run" an AI are close to zero in the grand scheme of things, "you should requalify" won't work for the vast majority of the workers, and as you said Sen. Sanders we are left here hoping that these rich folks would behave differently once AI takes over the jobs, why should they if they never have?