u/synthchef

Every prior leap in productive power; printing press, factory, robotics, had cost barriers high enough that capital owned the gains by default. Labor never had a real shot at capturing them.

AI is the first one where the tool is cheap enough that an individual worker can wield it directly. That’s genuinely new. And the response from the left has been to refuse it.

Think about who that serves. If labor doesn’t adopt, capital adopts anyway and keeps 100% of the surplus. Same story as every prior automation wave. If labor does adopt, there’s at least a fight over who captures the gains. Refusal is a choice that lines up with capital’s interests whether anyone planned it that way or not.

Listen I know this is insane and based on zero evidence, but based on the incentives at play I would be utterly unsurprised if this was the case.

Never has an advancement in productive power like this been within reach of the laborer themselves. From the printing press to robotic automation it has always had massive cost barriers that allowed capitalists to maintain ownership of the efficiency gains of automation.

Now we have one that the laborer can benefit from directly and public sentiment has completely soured on it? Why?

To me it kind of feels like it is in the best interest of the capital owning class if laborers are largely unwilling or, at some point, unable to use AI. Thoughts?