I think you're suggesting there is some cognitive dissonance there. I think there's some truth to that, but it's also ignoring a true difference.
Personal finances can be viewed (somewhat incorrectly) as not being zero-sum. Me making more for my work or investments seems like it doesn't take from anyone else.
While a CEO deciding that AI should handle as much of the labor in a company as possible seems like a decision that benefits the company and it's shareholders directly at the expense of its workers.
I think in actual fact both sides here are zero-sum, but when the worker makes more personally, there are only diffuse and marginally-affected losers (the company, its shareholders, consumers and customers experiencing higher prices, etc.). The company's actions would affect people that can be directly named and are terribly affected.
It's unfortunately the difference between stealing 5¢ from 10,000,000 people or $100k from 5 people.
I don't think I am. You put the facts pretty succinctly. I just evaluate them differently.
Having thousands of smart humans optimizing for their personal goals in their individual ways, at the expense of company goals, is an issue that exists in every company, bankrupts companies and super frightening to deal with as a CEO.
People are not obviously more noble, when working towards personal goals instead of company goals, and a lot of people working towards their personal goals instead of company goals, is a serious issue for any company. Not having a single entity and one big number to deal with makes it actually much more powerful and scary.
Then you might think they'd be scared of handing over the keys to their company to an inscrutable AI working towards OpenAI's goals, but I guess the money is too good.
> While a CEO deciding that AI should handle as much of the labor in a company as possible seems like a decision that benefits the company and it's shareholders directly at the expense of its workers.
Many businesses are low profit margin with very price sensitive customers. There is reasonable concern that if they don’t follow competitors’ in efforts to reduce pricing, the whole business might fail.
See outsourcing textile manufacturing and other manufacturing to Asia. See grocery stores that source dairy and meet from local producers only rather than national operations with economies of scale. See insurance companies where the only concern is almost always lowest premium, not quality of customer service or claims resolution.
Personal finances can be viewed (somewhat incorrectly) as not being zero-sum. Me making more for my work or investments seems like it doesn't take from anyone else.
While a CEO deciding that AI should handle as much of the labor in a company as possible seems like a decision that benefits the company and it's shareholders directly at the expense of its workers.
I think in actual fact both sides here are zero-sum, but when the worker makes more personally, there are only diffuse and marginally-affected losers (the company, its shareholders, consumers and customers experiencing higher prices, etc.). The company's actions would affect people that can be directly named and are terribly affected.
It's unfortunately the difference between stealing 5¢ from 10,000,000 people or $100k from 5 people.