The AI–Robotics Combo: Will All Employees Be Replaced?

(The Epoch Times)—On April 14, a local government administrator in the United States sent my relative a letter that she suspected of including artificial intelligence (AI) content. Sure enough, an AI detector found 83 percent generated by AI GPT.

She said it was the best letter she had ever received from a politician—and she writes to her representatives frequently. She praised the letter for responding to every single point she raised in her own letter, something no unaided politician had ever done.

We toyed with the idea of confronting the administrator publicly. If AI wrote a better letter than the administrator himself, perhaps he could be replaced with the technology, and his salary redeployed for more substantive taxpayer benefits. It was a tongue-in-cheek idea. But the logic is nevertheless disturbing.

If artificial intelligence is now better than one politician for one task, according to one constituent, is it plausible that in 10 or 20 years, AI could be better than all politicians for all their tasks, according to most constituents?

At that point, voters might just vote for an AI politician rather than a human one. Human politicians are, after all, time-constrained by their need to sleep, eat, and hobnob with their elite donors and other benefactors.

My relative decided not to confront the politician at his next public meeting. She wants to influence his decisions in the future, and public shaming is probably not the best way to do this. So he gets a pass to continue using AI on unsuspecting constituents. Even his tiny hold on power at the local level protected him from the truth.

If he can get away with it, perhaps many other politicians are doing the same. This empowers AI-using politicians at the expense of the old-fashioned types who simply do not have enough time to respond to every point of every letter of every constituent, but try anyway. AI politicians then gain an advantage in the next election, and over time, due to natural selection, all politicians will use AI, as those who don’t get voted out.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE), a small autocratic country in the Middle East, is already way “ahead” of this slow “democratic” transition to AI. In a world first, the UAE is using AI to both track the effects of existing legislation and write drafts of new legislation. Presumably, the president of the UAE will review the legislation prior to enacting it. Let’s hope so, as there would then be at least one human in the loop.

The UAE considers using AI to write legislation to be 70 percent more efficient than relying on human legislators to write laws. How that remarkably round number was arrived at is unclear. But as UAE citizens cannot vote, they could essentially become forced laborers working not only for the president of the UAE but also for AI, given that nobody understands exactly how AI comes up with its recommendations.

Now, consider expanding this to everything. A new startup in Silicon Valley, called Mechanize, audaciously wants to use AI to automate all jobs. The startup, launched on April 17, expects to start replacing white-collar jobs, such as those of accountants, lawyers, and authors (full disclosure: this author is an author, so may be biased in favor of humans).

But the company also envisions pairing AI with robots to mechanize other jobs, for example, in agriculture, construction, and manufacturing. Companies like Waymo, Zoox, Tesla, and Lyft are already well on their way to populating our streets with robotaxis that could eventually lead most of us to dump our cars, perhaps in compliance with a government fiat written by AI.

That the military could also be automated, despite the promises of AI companies to do no such thing, is obvious given the rise of armed drones on the battlefields of Ukraine, and the interest of the U.S. and Chinese militaries in matching AI with drone warfare. One reason the United States denies the fastest AI semiconductors to China is that they are needed for the small AI devices onboard military drones that must learn from the adversary’s strategies mid-flight. The drone that learns the fastest and adapts its tactics to enemy drones before returning to base will survive.

The Israel Defense Forces reportedly used AI to target as many as 37,000 Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) suspects with a 90 percent accuracy rate. This was paired with some “acceptable” level of civilian casualties per target to arrive at those approved for aerial bombing, with not-too-accurate dumb bombs. AI saved a lot of time for the targeters, though.

Communists have long promoted the idea of full mechanization to “free” humans of the need to labor. In their “utopian” schemes, full mechanization would allow humans the free time to pursue whatever they want, including leisure, art, and family. With the rise of mechanization, automation, robots, and AI, a new utopianism is coming that will appeal to the “Silicon Valley proletariat” of coders, programmers, and other tech workers.

With AI, this coming “tech vanguard” can seek an AI communism, in which humans frolic in nature while being watched over by the machine. It sounds dystopian and easily manipulable by Leninists if not Stalinists. But its rosy-glassed adherents will see it the other way around. They have likely read Richard Brautigan’s 1967 poem envisioning a “cybernetic ecology”:

where we are free of our labors
and joined back to nature,
returned to our mammal
brothers and sisters,
and all watched over
by machines of loving grace.

Brautigan was not specifically communist, though he was counter-culture.

In the mid-2000s, a British movement developed a concept similar to being “watched over by machines of loving grace” that would become known as “fully automated luxury communism.” It was described by The Guardian in 2015 as “an opportunity to realise a post-work society, where machines do the heavy lifting and employment as we know it is a thing of the past.” This was before AI became popular. With AI, even the white collar workers will be “free.”

AI is being touted, by even those who know its dangers more than others, as a carrot and stick, a necessary evil, like nuclear weapons, in the competition with China. This could be considered an “anti-communist” or “anti-authoritarian” use of AI. The idea is that, if the United States does not deploy the most sophisticated AI to both entice Beijing to reform, and deter Beijing from attack, market democracy could be at a disadvantage.

In any conflict that occurs, Beijing will certainly deploy all technologies at its disposal. This puts those who would prefer to go slowly and carefully, or avoid any future of AI, in a bind. Use AI fire to fight fire, or not? And what if the fire blows back on the freedom of the individual in a market democracy, after burning the authoritarian adversary?

Handing over so much power, up to and including “AI communism,” whether in the form of political power to legislate or industrial power that replaces trillions of dollars worth of human labor, is an immense concentration of power in the hands of whoever controls AI. That could be a dictator, an oligarchy, an elected official who accrues too much power, or a hacker. It could even be AI itself, if it goes rogue or is irretrievably granted that power at some point in the future.

The advent of AI is likely a disaster for human agency, especially if it later develops malign rather than benign attitudes toward humanity. A benign AI is in no way guaranteed if we relinquish power to an immensely powerful technology that even its creators do not fully understand, and are not confident they can control.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.