Should candidates capitalize on anxieties regarding AI and automation?

[WalterWhite]

This is an untapped goldmine for political populism. Technological advancements have the potential not only to eliminate many blue-collar jobs (i.e. manufacturing), they also have the potential to eliminate many pink-collar (service industry) jobs and white-collar jobs (i.e. engineering). Additionally, creative types (artists and writers) could have their entire careers destroyed from AI given the speed at which AI can produce artwork and literature.

Any candidate that successfully capitalizes on potential anxieties regarding AI and automation will able to court voters from a wide array of demographics, from low-income blue-collar workers to high-income white-collar workers. Moreover, such a campaign could have strong crossover appeal, given that both low-income workers (who tend to vote Democratic) and high-income workers (who tend to vote Republican) will be affected.

It is not like these fears are unfounded. Millions of manufacturing jobs have already been lost to automation.. There already exists AI that can write basic programs.

It would be very politically advantageous for a political campaign to take advantage of these anxieties. Should candidates/parties capitalize on these anxieties (i.e. make it a central focus of their campaign), and if so, when will they?

[The Economy is Getting Worse]

This is an untapped goldmine for political populism. Technological advancements have the potential not only to eliminate many blue-collar jobs (i.e. manufacturing), they also have the potential to eliminate many pink-collar (service industry) jobs and white-collar jobs (i.e. engineering). Additionally, creative types (artists and writers) could have their entire careers destroyed from AI given the speed at which AI can produce artwork and literature.

Any candidate that successfully capitalizes on potential anxieties regarding AI and automation will able to court voters from a wide array of demographics, from low-income blue-collar workers to high-income white-collar workers. Moreover, such a campaign could have strong crossover appeal, given that both low-income workers (who tend to vote Democratic) and high-income workers (who tend to vote Republican) will be affected.

It is not like these fears are unfounded. Millions of manufacturing jobs have already been lost to automation.. There already exists AI that can write basic programs.

It would be very politically advantageous for a political campaign to take advantage of these anxieties. Should candidates/parties capitalize on these anxieties (i.e. make it a central focus of their campaign), and if so, when will they?

Andrew Yang already campaigned on this.

I personally disagree with the notion that it will lead to a loss of living standards by replacing jobs; I believe that it will lead to an increase in living standards by increasing productivity, and jobs won't be an issue because there will always be something to do that hasn't been achieved. However, I can see this being an effective campaign issue.

[Upper Canada Tory]

I think there are some serious concerns when it comes to AI, but no, this just strikes me as a cheap political strategy. Instead, politicians should work on a proposal to implement an adequate regulatory regime for AI technology and campaign on that.

Regarding automation, no, this would be terrible policy wise. Firstly, there is no way to 'stop' automation (do you make it illegal for companies to automate?). Automation has been occuring since the beginning of time and it will continue to occur in the future. Second of all, the only ways we have at our disposal to meaningfully decelerate automation would also result in reduced productivity which would also result either in a reduced standard of living for the average person or even more jobs being outsourced/otherwise lost. Thirdly, automation also results in job creation and advances technological progress in general. Fear mongering about automation is like fear mongering about the piano replacing the harpsichord.

I think that something we can talk about, as Andrew Yang did during his 2020 presidential campaign, is some of the potential consequences to automation and how we can best mitigate them. Yang's proposal was a UBI for people who lose their jobs due to automation, which may or may not be the best option to do so and I think it would be totally fine if other candidates proposed their ideas on how to mitigate the issues with automation.

AI and automation should be discussed as issues and how to mitigate their consequences, but no, they shouldn't capitalize on populist anxieties associated with regular technological progress.