Anyone born in the next few decades will disagree with you. They will find this new world comfortable and rich with content. They will never understand what your problem is.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams
> They will find this new world comfortable and rich with content.
I agree with the first half: comfort has clearly increased over time since the Industrial Revolution. I'm not so sure the abundance of "content" will be enriching to the masses, however. "Content" is neither literature nor art but a vehicle or excuse for advertising, as pre-AI television demonstrated. AI content will be pushed on the many as a substitute for art, literature, music, and culture in order to deliver advertising and propaganda to them, but it will not enrich them as art, literature, music, and culture would: it might enrich the people running advertising businesses. Let us not forget that many of the big names in AI now, like X (Grok) and Google (Gemini), are advertising agencies first and foremost, who happen to use tech.
You don't know this though with even a high probability.
It is quite possible there is a cultural reaction against AI and that we enter a new human cultural golden age of human created art, music, literature, etc.
I actually would bet on this as engineering skills become automated that what will be valuable in the future is human creativity. What has value then will influence culture more and more.
What you are describing seems like how the future would be based on current culture but it is a good bet the future will not be that.
> My parents were born well after the hydrogen bomb was developed, and they were never comfortable with it
The nuclear peace is hard to pin down. But given the history of the 20th century, I find it difficult to imagine we wouldn't have seen WWIII in Europe and Asia without the nuclear deterrent. Also, while your parents may have been uncomfortable with the hydrogen bomb, the post-90s world hasn't particularly been characterised by mass nuclear anxiety. (Possibly to a fault.)
You might have missed the cold war in your summary. Mass nuclear anxiety really characterized that era, with a number of near misses that could have ended in global annihilation (and that’s no exaggeration).
IMO, the Atoms for Peace propaganda undersells how successful globalization has been at keeping nations from destroying each other by creating codependence on complex supply chains. The new shift to protectionism may see an end to that
The supply chain argument was also made wrt European countries just before WW1. It wasn't even wrong - economically, it was as devastating as predicted for everyone involved, with no real winners - but that didn't preclude the war.
The scale of globalization post-WW2 puts it on a whole other level. The complexity of supply chains now are such that any country would grind to a halt without imports. The exception here, to some degree, is China, but so far they've been more interested in soft power over military, and that strategy has served them well. Though it seems the US are gearing up for a fight with a fully domestic manufacturing capability and natural resource pools of its own. It would require consistent protectionist policy over multiple administrations to pull something like that off, so it remains to be seen if that's truly possible.
Yeah, let's just ignore all the wars and genocides that nuclear powers engaged in and supported and all nuclear powers that are constantly at war or engaging in occupation of others since they started existing and millions of dead and affected people.
Nice "peace".
We had 100 years of such kind of peace among major europe powers before nuclear weapons. We're not even at 80 years of peace in nuclear age, this time, and nuclear armed power is already attacking from the east and from inside via new media.
I wouldn't call it done and clear, about the "nuclear age peace".
That's true, but I think AI may be enough of a disruption to qualify. We'll of course have to wait and see what the next generation thinks, but they might end up envious of us, looking back with rose-tinted glasses on a simpler time when people could trust photographic evidence from around the world, and interact with each other anonymously online without wondering if they were talking to an astroturf advertising bot.
Nuclear arms races are a form of multipolar trap, and like any multipolar trap, you are compelled to keep up, making your own life worse, even while wishing that you and your opponent could cooperatively escape the trap.
The discussion I was responding to is whether the next generation would grow up seeing pervasive AI as a normal and good thing, as is often the case with new technology. I cited nuclear weapons as a counterexample, while I agree that nobody felt that they had a choice but to keep up with them.
AI could similarly be a multipolar trap ("nobody likes it but we aren't going to accept an AI gap with Russia!"), which would mean it has that in common with nuclear weapons, strengthening the argument against the next generation being comfortable with AI.
You don't need that much warheads to saturate your military needs. Number of possible targets is limited, in older plans there was clearly absurd overkill when a few nukes were assigned to a single target.
Also, nukes don't write code or wash your dishes, it's nothing but liability for a society.
That's not the point, GP is pointing out how we only control (at least theoretically, lol) our own government, and basic game theory can tell you that countries that adopt pacifist ideas and refuse to pursue anything that might be dangerous will always at some point be easily defeated by others who are less moral.
The point is that it's complicated, it's not a black and white sound bite like the people who are "against nuclear weapons" pretend it is.
And people don't have to feel comfortable with complicated things. The GP posted "would you prefer" as a disingenous point to invalidate the commenter's parents' feelings.
I eat meat. I know some vegans feel uncomfortable with that. But personally I feel secure in my own convictions that I don't need to run around insinuating vegans are less than or whatever.
With enough anti-military, anti-nuclear, anti-whatever-looks-scary-to-them people we'll stand with our pants down, just like EU or Canada these days. There was a lot of activism during the Cold war of that kind, lucky for US there weren't enough "discomforted" people back then.
Alignment Failure → Shifting Expectations
People get used to AI systems making “weird” or harmful choices, rationalizing them as inevitable trade-offs.
Framing failures as “technical glitches” rather than systemic issues makes them seem normal.
Runaway Optimization → Justifying Unintended Consequences
AI’s extreme efficiency is framed as progress, even if it causes harm.
Negative outcomes are blamed on “bad inputs” rather than the AI itself.
Bias Amplification → Cultural Reinforcement
AI bias gets baked into everyday systems (hiring, policing, loans), making discrimination seem “objective.”
“That’s just how the system works” thinking replaces scrutiny.
Manipulation & Deception → AI as a Trusted Guide
People become dependent on AI suggestions without questioning them.
AI-generated narratives shape public opinion, making manipulation invisible.
Security Vulnerabilities → Expectation of Insecurity
Constant cyberattacks and AI hacks become “normal” like data breaches today.
People feel powerless to push back, accepting insecurity as a fact of life.
Autonomous Warfare → AI as an Inevitable Combatant
AI-driven warfare is seen as more “efficient” and “precise,” making human involvement seem outdated.
Ethical debates fade as AI soldiers become routine.
Loss of Human Oversight → AI as Authority
AI decision-making becomes so complex that people stop questioning it.
“The AI knows best” becomes a cultural default.
Economic Disruption → UBI & Gig Economy Normalization
Mass job displacement is met with new economic models (UBI, gig work, AI-driven welfare), making it feel inevitable.
People adjust to a world where traditional employment is rare.
Deepfakes & Misinformation → Truth Becomes Fluid
Reality becomes subjective as deepfakes blur the line between real and fake.
People rely on AI to “verify” truth, giving AI control over perception.
Power Concentration → AI as a Ruling Class
AI governance is framed as more rational than human leadership.
Dissent is dismissed as “anti-progress,” consolidating control under AI-driven elites.
AI advocates argue that those who lose jobs simply failed to "upskill" in time.
The burden is placed on workers to constantly retrain, even if AI advancement outpaces human ability to keep up.
Companies and governments say, “The opportunities are there; people just aren’t taking them.”
"Work Ethic Problem"
The unemployed are labeled as lazy or unwilling to compete with AI.
Hustle culture promotes side gigs and AI-powered freelancing as the “new normal.”
Welfare programs are reduced because “if AI can generate income, why can’t you?”
"Personal Responsibility for Economic Struggles"
The unemployed are blamed for not investing in AI tools early.
The success of AI-powered entrepreneurs is highlighted to imply that struggling workers "chose" not to adapt.
People are told they should have saved more or planned for disruption, even though AI advancements were unpredictable.
"It’s a Meritocracy"
AI-driven success stories (few and exceptional) are amplified to suggest anyone could thrive.
Struggling workers are seen as having made poor choices rather than being victims of automation.
The idea of a “deserving poor” is reinforced—those who struggle are framed as not working hard enough.
"Blame the Boomers / Millennials / Gen Z"
Economic shifts are framed as generational failures rather than AI-driven.
Older workers are told they refused to adapt, while younger ones are blamed for entitlement or lack of work ethic.
Cultural wars distract from AI’s role in job losses.
"AI is a Tool, Not the Problem"
AI is framed as neutral—any negative consequences are blamed on how people use it.
“AI doesn’t take jobs; people mismanage it.”
Job losses are blamed on bad government policies, corporate greed, or individual failure rather than automation itself.
"The AI Economy Is Full of Opportunity"
Gig work and AI-driven side hustles are framed as liberating, even if they offer no stability.
Traditional employment is portrayed as outdated, making complaints about job loss seem like resistance to progress.
Those struggling are told to “embrace the new economy” rather than question its fairness.
You can only do so much with agitprop. At the end of the day, if, say, 60% of the population has no income without a job and no hopes of getting said job, they are not going to starve to death no matter the justification for it.
Historically, humanity evolved faster when it was interacting. So groups can try to isolate themselves but on the long run that will make them lag behind.
US benefited a lot from lots of smart people going there (even more during WWII). If people start believing (correctly or incorrectly) that they would be better somewhere else, it will not benefit them.
Thing is, if there's too many of "them", they will eventually come for "us" with torches and pitchforks. You can victimize a large part of the population like that, but not a supermajority of it.
Lets talk again after AI causes massive unemployment and social upheaval for a few decades until we find some new societal model to make things work.
This is inevitable in my view.
AI will replace a lot of white collar jobs relatively soon, years or decades.
And blue collar isn't too far behind, since a major limiting factor for automation is general purpose robots being able to act in a dynamic environment, for which we need "world models".
Relative to them, we most certainly are. By every objective metric, humanity has flourished in "the last generations." I get it that people are stressed today -- people have always been stressed. It is, in a sense, fundamental to the human condition.
Easy for you to say that. The political party running this country ran on a platform of the eradication of me and my friends. I can't legally/safely use public restrooms in several states, including some which have paid bounties for reporting. Things will continue to improve for the wealthy and powerful, but in a lot of ways have become worse for the poor and vulnerable.
When I was a kid, there was this grand utopian ideal for the internet. Now it's fragmented, locked in walled gardens where people are psychologically abused for advertising dollars. AI could be a force for good, but Google has already ended its ban on use in weapons and is selling it to the IAF, and Palantir is busy finding ways to use it for surveillance.
Eradication of an ideology is not the same as eradication of people. It's also a stretch to say Michael Knowles, a famous shock-jock, speaks for the Republican party.
> Eradication of an ideology is not the same as eradication of people.
We have as much (if not more) documented historical evidence of gender non-conformance as we do homosexual behavior. To me, "eradicating transgenderism" is a threat no different than if someone were to endorse "eradicating homosexuality".
Back in the 1980s, both homosexuality and gender non-conformance were considered "ideology", and likely thousands of unnecessary deaths occurred during the AIDS crisis because of the federal government's efforts to encourage stigma, keep people in the closet, and a complete failure to treat AIDS as a genuine healthcare crisis. What we're going through now may not be as dramatic as the 80s AIDS crisis, but there are clear comparisons, and people in my community will suffer and die because of lack of access to medical treatment.
There are/were maybe a dozen trans athletes in college sports. No one is performing surgeries (or causing irreparable damage) to minors. Personally, I don't care what people call me as long as they're respectful. I want to live my life without the government trying to control my personal choices, or ban life-saving treatment that is endorsed by multiple major medical institutions.
> It's also a stretch to say Michael Knowles, a famous shock-jock, speaks for the Republican party.
Fair, but the fact that no one denounced it after he said it on stage at CPAC is a tacit endorsement.
Evidence of gender non-conformance? What does that even mean? Evidence of men who like to dress like women? Men can dress like women if they like (much as they are welcome to sleep with other men). The issue is that act does not actually make them women. That's the ideology ("Trans women are women."). They're men dressed like women. They are not, and cannot be, women. A woman is an adult female human. An effiminate man is not a woman.
There is a very, very small fraction of humanity that suffers sex organ deviations. Those few cases can make sex classification more difficult at birth (though they are almost always either XX or XY), but those few cases do not provide cover for men who dress like women participating in women's sports, using women's bathrooms, or other female privileges. With the exception of a small group of activists, all of America agrees with this, including many prominent trans-females -- this position IS the right side of history.
And you're wrong about the growing number of trans athletes at all levels of sport. And you're most certainly wrong about surgeries on minors. You'd have to be living in a cave to believe otherwise.
Saying their identity is "ideology" is part of the problem. There's plenty of violent movements that can be framed as just "eradicating ideology", when in reality that is just a culture, condition, religion, or trait that you don't understand or accept.
"Sex" for you is determined by genitals and chromosomes, right? Can you show me any instance where a transgender man believes he has a natural penis or XY chromosomes?
Uhuh. Let me guess, you're a heterosexual white male?
the Republicans have been very explicit about making my existence a crime since the 1980s. These are the despicable people who made jokes about my friends dying of AIDS, who now want to make just mentioning my marriage 'sexualized content' and therefore prosecutable. Oh, and by the way, they want to eradicate my marriage, which had to be repeated because it was rescinded by a court decision affecting me and 3,997 other couples.
I want to be very clear, so let me say this: you are wrong, and have no idea what it actually means to be on the receiving end of discrimination.
