draft
Here is why I think ChatGPT will cause major hardship.
When
globalization happened our government said: "Lowered cost of
transport and new communications technology enables a new approach to
how things are built and who builds them. Each country contributes what
it does best and most efficiently, and overall the world improves
because we reach a "new equilibrium" (*) and everybody is richer. People
who formerly did manufacturing, for example, could now work in offices
in "information technology" or "the service industry" whatever that may mean.
But either
hindsight, or some would say, a few minutes forethought, would show this was
nonsense. Workers were cheaper in some countries because they were
wildly exploited. Companies used this to bust unions in their own countries. In some cases it
wasn't about efficiency, it was about government subsidies to move an
industry from one country to another. When manufacturing or another
industry left, the economic structure of cities would collapse as families became unemployed and left town.
Furthermore there was no money for retraining workers for these different industries which may already be oversubscribed. Would a 50 yr old worker want to work as a
secretary for 1/10th their former salary? Who would train them? Who
would hire them? So formerly middle class families would slip into poverty. They would lean on their savings assuming they had any. Families would need new sources of income, perhaps a spouse would have to work. Mothers would have to work so children would have to go to day care with a variety of long term implications for development. Remember the Republican emphasis on the traditional American family? Well, not so much it would appear. Retirement would be affected as less money could be saved or put into social security. A family might not be able to support sending a child to college, certainly not an elite one. The restaurants and stores that relied on these workers for customers would go out of business because their customers could not afford to eat out or would have to move away to find work. There would be less tax revenues for the local community and the local schools. No doubt large corporations made money, but as always
in most countries they dont pay taxes. The so called
shareholders made money, yes, perhaps the top 10% of society, but again the rich dont pay taxes. And
politically we got more extremism, either right or left but mostly right
(for reasons that are not so clear to me).
I have anecdotal stories about how this played out in the traditional animation industry, in glamourous digital visual effects and in the community of Culver City.
Now
with ChatGPT a big chunk of the middle class who make their living in part by
being able to write competent essays will be disenfranchised and
impoverished. What percentage of the population in developed countries am I talking about? A few percent? More? Public relations, marketing and advertising come to
mind. Maybe Hollywood screenwriting (ha ha, thats a joke). If government was actually good at helping people find new
careers and training them this might be different. But our government
doesn't even pay for education or pay the expenses of a real family while someone
learns a new trade, or prevent ageism in the work place, for example.
So what do I recommend? No, ChatGPT is not about real intelligence or eliminating the great writer, but it is about a lot of real hardship in America and the rest of the developed world. As usual, our government is useless, except for the rich. But at the very least we should expect the three minimum requirements mentioned above. 1. Pay for education and retraining. Seriously pay for it, and remember I am not just talking about junior college or a trade school here. Think Harvard and Princeton. 2. Pay real expenses of a family, perhaps $50-100K / year. And 3. Make serious efforts to reduce ageism in the work place which is rampant and about which the government does nothing.
The Republicans will say this is socialism. But then they said that about the minimum wage, the 40 hours work week, and social security.
* Economists get all hot when they talk about "equilibrium".