Link: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/may/11/ai-worker-control-surveillance

Crossposted from https://reddthat.com/post/65500442

I mean yes, but also no

The job apocalypse is absolutely not something to forget.

It's a much greater threat given it will require us to change the world economic system to one that doesn't require everyone to have a job to survive. The alternative? Everyone in slums and poverty.

The media will be desperate to point you to anything other than that because it's an existential threat to their owners.

A little surprising to see this from the Guardian given they have a different ownership model to most outlets, but I guess it's a good reminder that all media will defend money if push comes to shove

I think the threat is greater still.

Without jobs, and living off of whatever state based support, what leverage will the jobless have in society? How easy will it be to simply dismiss and ignore this economically disenfranchised cohort? To forcefully abuse them if it’s politically convenient? To completely prevent them from moving economic class. It certainly won’t be a clean jump to Star Trek “utopia”.

And beyond that of course are AI apocalypse scenarios. With machines increasingly running the world, what leverage will humanity have over it?

TBF that's kinda what I meant by poverty and slums, that's not the outcome of a demographic that has any semblance of power in their political/economic system.

It comes down to ownership as it always has. If the thing taking all the jobs is owned by a handful of people, it will only benefit them ultimately. If it's owned by the many, the outcome for the many is improved.

Americans need to quickly get over a lot of brainwashing for us to stand a chance of the good end though

Yes, but surveilled unemployed are more tolerable.

Catching up to analysis from four years ago, I see.

Revenge of the Chickenized Reverse-Centaurs

glad to see you're on our side comrade...

The job apocalypse is absolutely not something to forget.

Honestly wondering... why not? So far there is no evidence that an LLM can replace a worker of any kind, and all layoffs attributed to "AI" have not proven to be anything other than typical layoffs attributed to corporate greed.

Indeed. It's all a shell game to crush the power of labor (particularly in the tech industry) and pump up stock prices. It's definitely enshittifying work for a lot of people, but an apocalypse it is not. All the nigh-eschatological talk comes from the mouths of specious tech CEOs trying to keep the scam going.

I hope this discussion will gain some more mainstream traction, because it's the more immediate threat or practice, while not nearly being addressed sufficiently. The only thing I fundamentally disagree with, is the perceived notion, that the lack of transparency is the problem. The fact that these systems are in place is the problem: stop collecting excessive personal data on your workers (which depend on their jobs for an income), and all the problems magically disappear; without ambiguity.

I'm of the opinion that "private" property, which structurally invites the public (including workers), shouldn't classify as "private" property, and be subject to much stricter regulations on deployment of surveillance systems. It's not ethically justifiable, for people to be forced, to subject themselves to surveillance, simply to be able to make a living and buy food for themselves. Advances in technology have made it so, that surveillance tech is no longer compatible with modern society: supervisors (including law-enforcement) got to greedy, and now it's (hopefully) coming to bite them in the ass.

It's inevitable, sadly. It's like when people tried stopping the industrial revolution.

Yeah, what do you think all the data centers are for? AI chat bots?