Tristan Harris

So right now, you have AIs that are automating, say, customer service jobs.

So let's say that that disrupts the Philippines, where 90% of the economy is customer service.

I don't know what the number is.

It's high.

What happens when an entire country's economy gets disrupted by AI?

Are a handful of US AI companies going to pay out and support the well-being and the livelihoods of all these other people?

And then if people don't have money, how are they going to buy the goods in this future economy where it's all generated by AI?

Because now you don't even have an income.

So essentially, we're on track to break the entire economy.

This is not in the interest of countries.

What's confusing to me about this is that I believe it only took something like 20% unemployment for a couple of years to lead to the rise of fascism in Germany.

You don't need everyone's job to be automated to get levels of political disruption.

I think it was only 20% unemployment that basically led to the French Revolution.

there's kind of a mutually assured political revolution that is going to happen for all these countries that are racing to build AI and deploy it to automate as much labor as possible to compete to boost their external GDP number.

Like the metaphor you can have in your minds is like the US and China are

are essentially racing to take steroids and pumping up the GDP and muscles of their economy while they're getting internal lung failure, internal organ failure, internal brain rot failure, because they're governing the internal impact of that technology poorly.

So it's a race for external power while internal management of essentially like a, you know, failure of your body organs.

Does it make sense?

Well,

You know, one of the reasons that people think of AI so important for competition is if you think about geopolitical competition with China, economic power precedes other kinds of power.