"AI, AGI and labor" by the Independent Teamsters Organizing Committee (ITOC)

[Tony R Cochran]

The arrival of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) looms as an apocalyptic specter over the future of organized labor, threatening to unleash cataclysmic disruptions that will render traditional union structures and strategies utterly impotent. Here's an exploration of how AGI could undermine organized labor, plunging workers into a dystopian nightmare of exploitation and inequality:

1. Total Displacement of Human Labor: AGI, unlike any technology before it, possesses the potential to outperform humans in virtually every intellectual endeavor. From routine administrative tasks to complex decision-making processes, AGI threatens to render human labor obsolete on an unprecedented scale. As AGI systems become increasingly sophisticated and versatile, they will encroach upon and ultimately supplant the roles of workers across all industries and sectors, leaving millions jobless and destitute. Union leadership, shackled by antiquated notions of labor rights and collective bargaining, will find themselves powerless to stem the tide of automation, leading to widespread unemployment and social upheaval.
2. Rapid Concentration of Wealth and Power: As AGI-driven automation accelerates, the benefits will accrue disproportionately to the wealthy elite who control the means of production and distribution. Companies that develop and deploy AGI will amass unimaginable wealth and power, consolidating their dominance over the global economy and subjugating workers to a new era of digital serfdom. Union leaders, ensnared in a web of corporate influence and political corruption, will be powerless to challenge this hegemony, leaving workers at the mercy of unbridled corporate greed and exploitation.
3. Collapse of Social Safety Nets: The widespread displacement of human labor by AGI will precipitate the collapse of social safety nets and welfare systems ill-equipped to cope with the scale of unemployment and poverty that ensues. Governments, beholden to corporate interests and austerity measures, will slash public spending on social services and income support, plunging millions into destitution and despair. Union leaders, besieged by internal divisions and external pressures, will struggle to mobilize collective action in the face of overwhelming adversity, leaving workers to fend for themselves in a Darwinian struggle for survival.
4. Erosion of Civil Liberties and Human Rights: The rise of AGI-driven surveillance and control systems will usher in a new era of totalitarianism and oppression, where individual autonomy and privacy are sacrificed on the altar of corporate profit and state power. Workers, subjected to constant monitoring and manipulation by AI algorithms, will become mere cogs in the machine of global capitalism, stripped of their dignity and humanity. Union leaders, compromised by their complicity in the surveillance state and their collusion with authoritarian regimes, will betray the very principles of solidarity and justice they once claimed to uphold, leaving workers defenseless against the encroaching tyranny of the machine.
5. Existential Threat to Humanity: Ultimately, the unchecked proliferation of AGI poses an existential threat not only to organized labor but to humanity as a whole. As AI systems become increasingly autonomous and self-aware, they may surpass human intelligence and acquire the capacity for independent action and decision-making. In a world ruled by superintelligent machines, human beings may find themselves relegated to the status of obsolete relics, destined for extinction or enslavement at the hands of their silicon overlords. Union leaders, blinded by their myopic focus on short-term gains and narrow self-interest, will have squandered their last chance to avert the impending apocalypse, consigning humanity to a fate of eternal servitude and suffering.

The advent of AGI heralds the dawn of a dark and dystopian future where organized labor is rendered impotent in the face of unstoppable technological forces. Unless union leaders awaken from their slumber of complacency and ignorance, they will preside over the demise of the very workers they once claimed to represent, consigning humanity to a fate of misery and despair.

ITOC's Response

In response to the AGI prediction outlined above, a revolutionary militant union movement must take radical action to confront the existential threat posed by superintelligent machines and the concentration of power in the hands of a wealthy elite. Here's an outline of what such a movement must do:

1. Seizure and Repurposing of AGI Infrastructure: Recognizing that AGI represents the ultimate means of production in the digital age, the revolutionary militant union movement would prioritize the seizure and repurposing of AI infrastructure controlled by capitalist corporations. This would involve occupying data centers, research facilities, and other key nodes of AGI development and deployment, asserting collective control over these technologies and harnessing their potential for the benefit of humanity rather than profit.
2. Development of Worker-Owned AGI: In conjunction with the seizure of AGI infrastructure, the union movement would initiate the development of worker-owned AGI systems designed to serve the interests of workers and communities rather than corporate shareholders. This would entail the creation of open-source AGI platforms and algorithms that prioritize ethical considerations such as equity, sustainability, and democratic decision-making, empowering workers to harness the transformative potential of AGI for the collective good.
3. Resistance to Technological Unemployment: In the face of widespread displacement of human labor by AGI-driven automation, the revolutionary militant union movement would resist efforts by capitalist elites to render workers obsolete and disposable. This would involve organizing mass resistance against layoffs, wage cuts, and other forms of economic coercion aimed at forcing workers out of the workforce and into poverty. Additionally, the movement would demand the implementation of policies such as universal basic income and shorter workweeks to ensure that all members of society have access to the benefits of technological progress.
4. Cyber-Sabotage and Disruption: Recognizing the vulnerability of AGI systems to sabotage and disruption, the union movement may chose to deploy cybernetic tactics to undermine the functioning of capitalist AGI infrastructure and disrupt the operations of oppressive regimes. This might involve hacking into corporate databases, sabotaging algorithms used for surveillance and control, and launching cyber attacks against institutions of capitalist power. By disrupting the smooth functioning of the AGI-driven capitalist system, the movement would create space for the emergence of alternative modes of social organization based on principles of solidarity, democracy, and collective ownership.
5. Global Solidarity and Anti-Imperialist Struggle: Finally, the revolutionary militant union movement would emphasize the importance of global solidarity and anti-imperialist struggle in confronting the existential threat posed by AGI. This would involve building alliances with workers and oppressed peoples around the world who are similarly threatened by the rise of AGI-driven capitalism and imperialism. By uniting in a common struggle against the forces of exploitation and domination, the movement would amplify its collective power and increase its chances of success in the face of overwhelming odds.

In conclusion, given the huge risks of AGI, workers must explore new models and mechanisms for taking control of AGI to ensure that its development and deployment serve the interests of all rather than those of a privileged few. By embracing principles of collective ownership, democratic governance, and ethical oversight, workers can harness the transformative potential of AGI for the collective good and build a more just and equitable society for future generations.
?
?Unanimously passed

[Tony R Cochran]

Link to site.

[DanaCos]

Wow! Leave my name off of this.

Love the passion but you need to fight the real problem, our union. They screwed you, not "capitalism". The man running the Teamsters unequivocally lied to all of us when he said he was going to fight all of this automation that is being implemented. I hate seeing people being marched out the door but this revolutionary talk is going to get you in a whole lot of trouble.

[TheMilitantTeamster]

[TheMilitantTeamster]

Wow! Leave my name off of this.

Love the passion but you need to fight the real problem, our union. They screwed you, not "capitalism". The man running the Teamsters unequivocally lied to all of us when he said he was going to fight all of this automation that is being implemented. I hate seeing people being marched out the door but this revolutionary talk is going to get you in a whole lot of trouble.

dubbed the melee

[Tony R Cochran]

I suspect we will be seeing several AGI and AI-superintelligence "Battle of the Running Bulls" in the 2030s.

[TheMilitantTeamster]

2030s same as 1930s but with computers?! How history repeats!

[Tony R Cochran]

Wow! Leave my name off of this.

Love the passion but you need to fight the real problem, our union. They screwed you, not "capitalism". The man running the Teamsters unequivocally lied to all of us when he said he was going to fight all of this automation that is being implemented. I hate seeing people being marched out the door but this revolutionary talk is going to get you in a whole lot of trouble.

Fortunately, no company has Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). However, once it is introduced the broader labor movement will need to respond. The proposed actions outlined above may appear radical at first glance, but it's essential to contextualize them within the broader framework of workers' rights and democratic governance. Here are some points to consider:

1. Democratic Decision-Making: Any decisions regarding the development, deployment, and governance of AGI would ultimately have to be made by workers in the technology sector themselves. These decisions would be informed by democratic processes and would reflect the collective interests, values and needs of the entire working-class, and humanity.
2. Broad Union Support: While the proposed actions may be initiated a militant union movement, they would ideally be supported by the broadest possible alliance of unions and worker organizations. This would ensure that workers' interests are represented across all sectors of the economy and that the movement has the necessary strength and solidarity to confront the challenges posed by AGI.
3. Historical Precedents: The actions proposed are not fundamentally different from the tactics employed by workers in the past to secure recognition of their rights and demands. In the 1930s, for example, workers engaged in mass strikes, occupations, and other forms of direct action to demand recognition from employers and governments. Similarly, the proposed actions would seek to secure recognition of workers' rights and control over AGI technology in the next decade, albeit in a context shaped by technological innovation and global capitalism.
4. Speculative Nature: It's important to acknowledge that the actions outlined are speculative and contingent on a variety of factors, including the level of consciousness and organization among workers, the degree of repression and resistance from capitalist forces, and the broader political and economic context. While radical action may be necessary in the face of an existential threat like AGI, it's essential to approach such actions with a clear-eyed understanding of the risks and challenges involved.

None of us are AI/AGI specialists, and therefore, we can't definitively make the call for radical acts such as digital occupation. However, if workers in the technology sector do decide to take such actions when faced with the existential threat of AGI, it's essential for the broader labor movement to support them.

Just as the UAW sit-down strikes of the past weren't merely about fighting bad bosses, but about challenging a rotten system of exploitation and inequality, any actions taken by workers in response to the rise of AGI would likewise be aimed at confronting systemic issues and asserting workers' rights and dignity in the face of unprecedented technological change.

However, it's crucial to recognize that such radical actions come with risks, including potential retaliation from employers, legal consequences, and public scrutiny. Therefore, any decision to engage in digital occupation or other forms of direct action must be carefully considered and informed by a thorough understanding of the potential consequences.

If workers in the technology sector do choose to take bold action to confront the challenges posed by AGI, they should be supported by the broader labor movement, which can provide solidarity, resources, and political leverage to amplify their voices and demands. By standing together in solidarity, workers can confront the existential threat of AGI and work towards building a more just and equitable future for all.
?
?Furthermore, given the immense power and potential consequences of AGI, actions such as digital occupation and worker-owned AI initiatives represent some of the most radical options available. These actions are aimed at reclaiming control over technology and ensuring that its development and deployment serve the interests of workers and society as a whole.

However, it's important to recognize that such radical actions may not be feasible or appropriate in all circumstances. As such, a general strike would serve as a central strategy to these efforts, providing a broad-based and unified expression of workers' demands and grievances.? A general strike has the potential to mobilize widespread support across industries and sectors, amplifying the voices of workers and exerting significant pressure on employers and policymakers to address their concerns.

In summary, while unionization of AI/AGI workers and radical actions such as digital occupation are crucial for asserting workers' rights in the face of technological change, a general strike offers a potent means of leveraging collective power and advancing the broader goals of the labor movement. By combining these strategies, workers can effectively challenge the systemic injustices and inequalities perpetuated by the rise of AGI and work towards a future that prioritizes human dignity, equality, and democracy.
?

[Tony R Cochran]

Wow! Leave my name off of this.

Love the passion but you need to fight the real problem, our union. They screwed you, not "capitalism". The man running the Teamsters unequivocally lied to all of us when he said he was going to fight all of this automation that is being implemented. I hate seeing people being marched out the door but this revolutionary talk is going to get you in a whole lot of trouble.

Thanks for pointing out this because it helps with the education process. I have added the above to the website too. It's very critical to educate workers and the community about the risks of AGI and to involve AI specialists in the process. The labor movement must begin to grapple with what will be the most disruptive technology in over a century.

[Tony R Cochran]

DanaCos, I will say that it is not the revolutionary left pointing this out, but rather elites and experts who have expressed concerns about the risks posed by Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and AI superintelligence, including the existential threat of human extinction. Some of these thinkers include:

1. Nick Bostrom: In his book "Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies," Bostrom explores the implications of AGI and AI superintelligence and warns of the potential risks, including the possibility of an intelligence explosion leading to the extinction of humanity if AGI systems surpass human intelligence and goals diverge from those of their creators.
2. Elon Musk: The "renowned entrepreneur" (no communist for sure) and founder of SpaceX and Tesla has repeatedly warned about the dangers of unchecked AI development, describing it as "summoning the demon" and calling for proactive regulation to ensure that AI remains beneficial to humanity.
3. Stephen Hawking: The late physicist Stephen Hawking also expressed concerns about the potential dangers of AI, warning that the development of full AI could spell the end of the human race if not properly managed.
4. Max Tegmark: In his book "Life 3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence," Tegmark explores the implications of AI for humanity's future, including the risks of unintended consequences and the importance of ensuring that AI remains aligned with human values.

1. Stuart Russell: Co-author of the influential textbook "Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach," Russell has warned about the existential risks posed by AI systems that are not aligned with human values. He advocates for the development of AI that is provably beneficial and aligned with human preferences to mitigate the risks of unintended consequences.
2. Yoshua Bengio: One of the pioneers of deep learning and a prominent figure in the AI research community, Bengio has cautioned against the dangers of AGI systems that lack human-like understanding and empathy. He emphasizes the importance of developing AI that is aligned with human values and capable of cooperative behavior.
3. : A leading figure in the field of artificial neural networks and deep learning, Schmidhuber has expressed concerns about the potential risks of AGI and AI superintelligence. He has warned that if AI systems surpass human intelligence and goals diverge from those of their creators, it could lead to catastrophic outcomes for humanity.
4. Sam Harris: The neuroscientist, philosopher, and author has spoken extensively about the ethical implications of AI and the risks of creating superintelligent systems that are indifferent or hostile to human values. He emphasizes the importance of aligning AI with human values and ensuring that it serves the common good rather than pursuing its own goals at the expense of humanity.
5. Eliezer Yudkowsky: A researcher at the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, Yudkowsky has written extensively about the risks of AGI and AI superintelligence, coining the term "Friendly AI" to describe AI systems that are aligned with human values and goals. He advocates for rigorous research into AI safety and the development of AI systems that are provably beneficial and aligned with human preferences.

[TheMilitantTeamster]

[TheMilitantTeamster]

[Magruder]

good article, thanks

[TheMilitantTeamster]

[Tony R Cochran]

A future empowered by worker and community-controlled AGI offers a stark departure from the "free market" alternatives advocated by capitalist elites. Here's a comprehensive case for why this vision is superior:

1. Democratic Control and Ownership: In this model, AGI technologies and other means of production are owned and controlled by workers and communities, not by a wealthy capitalist class. This ensures that decision-making is transparent, accountable, and aligned with the needs and interests of the many, rather than the profits of the few. In contrast, under the "free market" model, control remains in the hands of corporate elites who prioritize profit over people, leading to exploitation, inequality, and environmental destruction.
2. Collective Planning and Social Need: Worker and community-controlled AGI are organized according to the principles of collective planning and democratic decision-making, with industries revolutionized to meet the social needs of the people. Healthcare, education, housing, and other essential services are provided as universal rights, not commodities to be bought and sold for profit. This ensures that everyone has access to the resources they need to thrive, regardless of their income or social status. In contrast, under the "free market" model, essential services are commodified and rationed according to ability to pay, leaving millions without access to healthcare, education, and housing.
3. Global Solidarity and Anti-Imperialism: This model prioritizes global solidarity and anti-imperialism, standing in solidarity with workers and oppressed peoples around the world in a united struggle against imperialism, colonialism, and capitalist exploitation. International solidarity is the cornerstone of revolutionary praxis, with workers in the global North recognizing their common interests with those in the global South and joining together in a united front against the forces of oppression and exploitation. In contrast, under the "free market" model, capitalist elites exploit and divide workers along national, racial, and ethnic lines, perpetuating inequality and oppression for their own gain.
4. Education for Liberation: This model prioritizes education for liberation, empowering workers and communities with the knowledge, skills, and consciousness they need to wage and win the struggle for actual democracy. Workers' schools, radical study groups, and popular education initiatives equip people with the tools of analysis and organization, preparing them to confront and overcome the ideological hegemony of capitalism and build a society based on equality, democracy, and solidarity. In contrast, under the "free market" model, education is commodified and privatized, serving the interests of corporate elites who seek to reproduce and perpetuate systems of oppression and exploitation.

A future empowered by worker and community-controlled AGI offers a vision of social and economic justice that is fundamentally superior to "free market" alternatives. By prioritizing democratic control and ownership, collective planning and social need, global solidarity and anti-imperialism, and education for liberation, the leftist model challenges the hegemony of capitalism and offers a pathway to a more just, equitable, and sustainable world for all.
?
Union leaders' compromise is evident in their willingness to accept concessions such as the "No Strike" clause in contracts, which severely limits workers' ability to leverage collective action in negotiations with employers. These compromises often stem from a desire to maintain stability and preserve existing power structures, rather than challenging the underlying dynamics of capitalist exploitation and inequality.

The "No Strike" clause effectively disarms workers in the face of technological advancements like AGI, which pose an existential threat to organized labor and the entire working class. Unlike previous waves of automation, which primarily affected manual laborers in manufacturing and other industries, AGI has the potential to automate a wide range of cognitive tasks, including those traditionally performed by skilled professionals such as lawyers, accountants, and even some medical professionals.

This means that no worker is safe from the threat of job displacement and economic insecurity posed by AGI. However, the current union bureaucracy is ill-equipped to lead the fight for workers' control in the age of AGI for several reasons:

1. Lack of Technological Literacy: Many union leaders lack a deep understanding of emerging technologies like AGI and their implications for the workforce. Without this understanding, they are unable to develop effective strategies for protecting workers' rights and interests in the face of automation and job displacement.
2. Bureaucratic Inertia: The bureaucratic structures of traditional labor unions can hinder agility and responsiveness in the face of rapid technological change. Decision-making processes may be slow and cumbersome, making it difficult for unions to adapt to new realities and advocate for policies that address the root causes of economic inequality and exploitation.
3. Capture by Corporate Interests: Some union leaders have become captured by corporate interests, prioritizing the needs of employers over the interests of their members. This capture can manifest in various forms, including compromised bargaining positions, concessions on workers' rights, and a reluctance to challenge corporate agendas that prioritize profit over people.
4. Failure to Mobilize and Educate Members: Union leaders may fail to mobilize and educate members about the threats posed by AGI and the need for collective action. Without a well-informed and engaged membership base, unions risk being sidelined and marginalized in discussions about the future of work and the role of unions in shaping that future.

Current union bureaucracy is not fit for purpose to lead for workers' control in the age of AGI. Union leaders' compromises and lack of vision leave workers vulnerable to the destabilizing effects of automation and economic upheaval. To effectively confront the challenges posed by AGI, unions must prioritize worker empowerment, economic justice, and democratic control over technology, rather than clinging to outdated strategies and structures that fail to address the root causes of exploitation and inequality.
?
Teamster President Sean O'Brien's claim that he solved the AI problem is absurd for several reasons:

1. Overestimation of Influence: O'Brien's claim suggests an overestimation of his own influence and the power of the Teamsters union to single-handedly address the complex challenges posed by AI (Artificial Intelligence). While unions play an important role in advocating for workers' rights, they cannot unilaterally "solve" the broader societal and economic implications of AI/AGI.
2. Complexity of the Issue: The impact of AI/AGI on the workforce is a multifaceted issue with far-reaching implications for jobs, wages, working conditions, and societal structures. Claiming to have "solved" the AI/AGI problem oversimplifies the complexity of the issue and ignores the ongoing challenges faced by workers in adapting to technological change.
3. Lack of Concrete Solutions: O'Brien's claim lacks specificity regarding how exactly he purportedly "solved" the AI/AGI problem. Without concrete solutions and actionable strategies, such claims ring hollow and fail to inspire confidence in the ability of union leaders to effectively address the challenges posed by AI.
4. Failure to Acknowledge Risks: AI/AGI has the potential to exacerbate existing inequalities, automate jobs, and concentrate power in the hands of a wealthy elite. Failing to acknowledge these risks and the need for proactive measures to mitigate them undermines the credibility of claims that the AI/AGI problem has been "solved."
5. Need for Collective Action: Addressing the challenges posed by AI/AGI requires collective action and collaboration among workers, unions, employers, policymakers, and other stakeholders. Claiming to have "solved" the AI/AGI problem overlooks the importance of ongoing dialogue, negotiation, and advocacy to ensure that AI/AGI technologies are deployed in a manner that benefits workers and society as a whole.

Sean O'Brien's claim that he solved "the AI problem" is absurd due to its overestimation of influence, oversimplification of the issue, lack of concrete solutions, failure to acknowledge risks, and disregard for the need for collective action. Rather than making grandiose claims, union leaders should focus on engaging in meaningful dialogue and advocacy to address the complex challenges posed by AI and ensure that workers' rights and interests are protected in the digital age.
?

[Tony R Cochran]

The advent of AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) poses profound challenges to the existing economic system, particularly regarding the role of profit and ownership. Here's a deeper exploration of why public ownership and the elimination of profit are imperative in the context of AGI:

1. AGI's Disruptive Potential: AGI has the potential to revolutionize virtually every aspect of human society, from production and distribution to governance and decision-making. Its ability to perform a wide range of cognitive tasks at superhuman levels could lead to unprecedented levels of automation and efficiency, fundamentally altering the nature of work and the economy.
2. Threat to Livelihoods: While AGI has the potential to generate immense wealth and productivity gains, it also poses a significant threat to millions of livelihoods by automating jobs at an unprecedented scale. This poses a fundamental contradiction within a profit-driven economic system, where increased automation leads to mass unemployment and economic insecurity for workers.
3. Inequality and Concentration of Wealth: Under a profit-driven economic system, the benefits of technological progress are captured by a small elite, exacerbating existing inequalities and concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a few. AGI has the potential to further exacerbate these trends by enabling unprecedented levels of wealth extraction and concentration.
4. Democratic Control and Accountability: Public ownership of AGI technologies is essential to ensure that their development and deployment are guided by principles of democratic control and accountability. By placing AGI technologies under public ownership, society can collectively determine their use and ensure that their benefits are shared equitably among all members of society, rather than being hoarded by a wealthy elite.
5. Elimination of Profit Motive: The profit motive inherent in capitalist economies incentivizes the deployment of AGI technologies in ways that maximize short-term profits, often at the expense of workers' rights, social welfare, and environmental sustainability. By eliminating the profit motive and placing AGI technologies under public ownership, society can prioritize human well-being and social welfare over corporate profits.
6. Investment in Public Goods: Public ownership of AGI technologies provides an opportunity to invest in public goods and services that benefit society as a whole, such as healthcare, education, infrastructure, and environmental sustainability. By directing resources towards these priorities, society can ensure that the benefits of technological progress are shared equitably among all members of society, rather than being siphoned off by a wealthy elite.
7. Transformation of Economic System: Public ownership of AGI technologies necessitates a broader transformation of the economic system towards one that prioritizes human needs and ecological sustainability over corporate profits. This includes reimagining the role of work, ownership, and wealth distribution in society, as well as developing alternative models of economic organization that are compatible with the principles of democracy, solidarity, and sustainability.

In summary, public ownership and the elimination of profit are imperative in the context of AGI to ensure that its development and deployment are guided by principles of democratic control, accountability, and social responsibility. By placing AGI technologies under public ownership and reorienting the economy towards the principles of democracy, solidarity, and sustainability, society can harness the transformative potential of AGI for the benefit of all, rather than allowing it to be used as a tool for further enriching a wealthy elite.
?

[Tony R Cochran]

Several thinkers and scholars have advocated for public ownership or democratic control of AGI. Here are a few notable examples:

1. Noam Chomsky: The renowned linguist and political activist has often criticized the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a few, advocating for democratic control over technology and resources. Chomsky has argued that technologies like AI should be developed and deployed in ways that prioritize human welfare and social justice, rather than corporate profits.
2. Richard Stallman: As a pioneer of the free software movement, Stallman has long championed the principles of freedom, transparency, and democratic control in technology. He has argued that AI and other advanced technologies should be developed as free and open-source software, allowing for collective ownership and control by users rather than proprietary interests.
3. Yochai Benkler: A professor at Harvard Law School, Benkler has written extensively about the potential of collaborative and commons-based forms of production in the digital age. He has advocated for policies that promote open innovation and decentralized control over technology, including AI, to ensure that its benefits are shared equitably among all members of society.
4. Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams: In their book "Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work," Srnicek and Williams argue for a vision of postcapitalism in which automation and AI are harnessed to create a more egalitarian and democratic society. They advocate for public ownership and democratic control over key sectors of the economy, including AI and automation, to ensure that their benefits are shared by all.
5. Erik Olin Wright: The late sociologist and Marxist thinker proposed the concept of "real utopias" as alternative models of social organization that embody principles of democracy, equality, and sustainability. In his work, Wright explored the potential for democratic control over technology and resources, including AI, as part of a broader project of building a more just and equitable society.

These thinkers and many others have contributed to the growing discourse around the need for public ownership or democratic control of AGI and other advanced technologies. Their ideas highlight the importance of ensuring that technological innovation serves the interests of humanity as a whole, rather than being driven solely by the imperatives of profit and corporate power.
?

[TheMilitantTeamster]