Conversely, a country that allows AI to replace too many jobs will find itself buried in masses of angry people with little to lose except their devalued lives.
Both of these comments are excellent. However, countries don’t make decisions. Individuals (that are mentally capable) make decisions, within their economic framework, and the result emerges at the national or global level.
Individuals will decide how to respond to AI, and we will see what happens. My guess, based on past adoptions of work-saving technologies, is that anyone capable of using AI to make their job easier will do so. And that may result in the elimination of other jobs.
Countries (governments) make lots of decisions as (governmental) entities with their own (effective) lives. Probably too many too fast. The problem is they often make the wrong decisions in spite of having very large and often educated staff. That's a problem. Someone asked recently what are the large problems facing humanity going forward and I think this is one of them. Government as entities will make lots of decisions in this case and no doubt most will be at counter-purpose. And this is a huge problem for humanity in general (because of the gross, terrible economic inefficiency of the process.)
We must find far more effective ways for governments to think, deliberate, simulate, act or not act, implement, enforce.
> countries don’t make decisions. Individuals (that are mentally capable) make decisions, within their economic framework, and the result emerges at the national or global level.
The economic framework, including rules, regulations, incentives, and penalties, amongst others, are set by government (“the country”).
Also, if government decides to employ and find AI, that already pushes things in a certain direction.
So yes, while individuals decide how to use AI, it is very much governments that have tremendous capacity and interest to bend and accelerate or decelerate its adoption patterns.
