AI is an attack from above on wages": cognitive scientist Hagen Blix

Impact of AI and Technology on Labor and Wages

• One side argues that, historically, new technology and rising GDP have broadly improved living standards, including for the poorest, and AI is likely to continue that trend.
• Others counter that past gains only arrived with strong regulation, unions, and social reforms; assuming “this time will be the same” is seen as complacent.
• Several commenters see AI explicitly as a tool for cutting labor costs and attacking middle‑class professional wages (developers, translators, lawyers, doctors), concentrating income in capital owners.
• Some technologists report AI raising junior workers’ capabilities and shifting senior work toward higher‑level design and debugging, and personally “love” the change.

Capitalism, Social Democracy, and “Blood-Soaked” Histories

• Debate centers on whether capitalism uniquely produces “blood-soaked” outcomes (colonial atrocities, corporate-backed coups, post‑Soviet privatization).
• Critics contrast capitalism with social democracy: regulated markets, strong safety nets, worker protections, and union–corporate negotiation.
• Others reply that social democracies are still deeply capitalist (e.g., stock exchanges, multinational firms, high wealth inequality) and are not morally “clean.”
• There is disagreement over whether laissez‑faire markets or regulated “managed capitalism” and welfare states are mainly responsible for improved living standards.

Automation, Quality, and Consumer Benefit

• Some say industrial and AI automation tend to flood markets with cheaper but lower‑quality goods, “depressing” average quality (e.g., fast fashion).
• Others respond that machines often enable higher precision and better products (interchangeable parts, fine fabrics) and increase absolute access to high‑quality items even if cheap, disposable goods proliferate.
• Consumer gains from lower prices are emphasized by pro‑market commenters; critics note that cheaper goods are meaningless if jobs and incomes erode.

Ownership, Compensation, and AI Models

• A recurring theme: builders of AI (employees and data‑producers) get fixed or no compensation, while owners capture ongoing profits, worsening inequality.
• Proposals include: revenue sharing across the “transitive” chain of contributors, nationalizing major AI firms, or funding robust UBI/BI from AI profits.
• Others argue granular revenue-sharing is unworkable and that broader instruments (taxes, welfare, job guarantees) make more sense.

Class Conflict, Unions, and Collective Action

• Several comments frame AI as a new front in a long-running class war, with elites using it to erode labor’s bargaining power.
• Unions and collective action are mentioned as under-discussed but critical responses, especially if AI ever does eliminate large swaths of work.
• One long comment criticizes “econosplaining” that dismisses workers’ lived experience of stagnating wages, rising necessity costs, and precarity, arguing this fuels anti‑capitalist populism.

Skepticism About AI Hype and Near-Term Effects

• Some note that, years into the generative AI wave, they see more bugs, slower delivery, and “plausible crap faster,” not mass layoffs.
• Others warn that even if current systems are overhyped, pursuing AI under today’s power structures will predictably channel gains upward unless political–economic systems change.