Is the AI-pocalypse at Hand?

Samuel Boivin/NurPhoto via AP

At a dinner with former Pentagon officials. At a party for journalists. At a bar with a renowned astrobiologist. In the past week, I’ve participated in several discussions where the topic of an impending AI-pocalypse has come up. No one was talking about a Terminator-like scenario with sentient machines extinguishing inefficient and pesky humans. What was on the table was the possible world-shattering impact of AI on the labor force—and the imminent threat of societal and political upheaval this poses.

The insertion of AI into modern life is happening at a much faster rate than most of us imagine. My hunch is that a year or so from now, AI will be ubiquitous, replacing apps, assisting us (whether we want it or not) in many aspects of our lives. And making many jobs obsolete. There are already whole sectors feeling the crunch.

The tech industry laid off about 80,000 jobs in the first quarter of this year—about half of that was due to AI. (In April, Oracle dumped 20,000 to 30,000 jobs; Meta, 8,000.) Entry-level computer engineers are taking a big hit. (AI can code.) And it’s not hard to see what’s coming. There are millions of American workers—insurance agents, paralegals, administrative assistants, call center and customer service employees, clerks at banks, medical offices, and other workplaces—facing replacement in the immediate future. Many of the most vulnerable jobs are entry-level positions. That means young people looking to get a foothold in the labor market could get hammered. And AI, as it inexorably advances, will work itself up the corporate food chain and eventually supplant managers.

Certainly, AI can improve much—for businesses and people. In South Korea, AI agents check in daily with the elderly who live alone, and they notify social welfare agencies or health care workers if any services are needed. But the gigantic displacement in the labor market may well cause a tectonic shift with dire consequences for many Americans and, thus, for our politics. AI advocates champion the productivity gains this technology promises. But—thinking big—what happens to a society if only a fraction of the population is needed as workers to provide all the goods and services people require to survive and lead healthy and enjoyable lives? What do the rest of us do?

This was the big question raised in these conversations I recently had. If we’re racing to a low-labor economy with much fewer jobs, what are the consequences?

The prospect of such a future has given a boost to the idea of establishing a universal basic income (UBI). Remember Andrew Yang, the tech guy who ran for president in 2020? This was his chief idea, guaranteeing a $12,000 annual payment (in monthly installments) to every American adult to compensate for job losses due to automation and AI. And Yang, who founded the centrist Forward Party after his failed presidential bid, is back in the mix, talking up UBI, as he did in a recent podcast with the New York Times. During that interview, he warned that the United States, thanks to AI, is facing "inequality on an epic, unprecedented scale." And Elon Musk has touted UBI, recently opining that "Universal HIGH INCOME via checks issued by the Federal government is the best way to deal with unemployment caused by AI.”

UBI or UHI are intriguing proposals—though $12K a year (per Yang’s previous suggestion) ain’t that much for a computer engineer who graduated Stanford or MIT and cannot find employment. And many people, no doubt, would rather work than pocket a government check (or Venmo payment). Such a deal doesn’t address a deeper issue: How should we restructure our society and culture, if we reach a point where it’s not necessary for most people to work? Much of the American ideal is invested in the value of work. Many people find their purpose in work and equate their identity with the job they hold.

With AI, we could be faced with a radical transformation in the social order. It could lead to a dystopian future in which we’re divided between a small elite of the superrich (trillionaires!) who reap the benefits of AI and the masses scrambling for the leftover crumbs. Or maybe pave the way to a new societal setup in which the profits and gains are more evenly distributed, and the notion of work is profoundly changed.

There’s much to consider here. But perhaps our biggest concern at the moment ought to be that we don’t have the collective ability to address this challenge in an effective and equitable manner. That is, our politics are not up to this immense task.

You only have to look at the bozos and liars now in charge of the federal government to see we’re screwed. Are any of these guys and gals capable of dealing with a job this enormous—guiding a historic transition in human society? To ask the question is to prompt laughter and tears.

See how Donald Trump has handled AI so far. He placed Silicon Valley bigwig David Sacks in charge of his administration’s AI and crypto policies, and Sacks pushed policies that aided his own investments and his Big Tech pals. Fox, meet henhouse. (Sacks recently announced he was leaving his post as AI and crypto czar to join the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology, where he still will be able to wield influence on AI and other matters.) As with all else—except his own bank account and personal glory—Trump doesn’t care what happens.

And Congress, no matter the party in charge, is not better able to steer us through these roiling waters. As we’ve seen for years, senators and representatives on both sides of the aisle have been feckless when it comes to monitoring and overseeing tech. At hearings on social media, many legislators have come across as dunderheads and demonstrated they don’t understand the basics of this medium. Now can we expect these always slow-moving legislators to comprehend AI and the changes it will bring and address the multiple issues raised—before it’s too late, whenever that may be?

Then there’s the matter of the folks with real power. Will the plutocrats and firms that stand to make gazillions from AI—assuming it pans out and the bubble doesn’t burst—want to regulate AI (if that’s possible) or share the riches they amass from it? Most billionaires like to hang on to their billions, as we now see in California, where the megawealthy are decrying the proposal for a billionaire’s tax. Should AI end work for millions—or tens of millions—can we count on the oligarchs who score big to become fans of massive wealth redistribution?

In the United States, money buys power and influence. One of the most well-funded super-PACs these days is a pro-AI outfit called Leading the Future, which is not keen on regulating AI. Another big player in the campaign finance world is a pro-crypto PAC. Earlier this year, Marc Andreessen and Benjamin Horowitz of the venture capital firm A16Z donated $25 million to Leading the Future, which has been active in congressional races across the country.

According to a source with firsthand information, the Democratic leadership of the House and Senate have advised Democrats running for office in the midterms to not take stands that piss off Leading the Future or other pro-AI and pro-crypto PACs. Doing so could cause a massive influx of negative ads targeting a candidate who dares to defy Big AI or the crypto crowd. This source also says that Democrats and Republicans in Congress are scared that Musk and others in Big Tech have access to so much data—presumably including data on them and their families.

These are not good signs. AI is racing ahead without much debate or deliberation. Critical decisions about its use and future are being made by those who stand to profit from the technology not by elected officials and regulators who are supposed to look out for the public’s interest. And knotty AI issues extend far beyond the topic of potential job loss. If you want to scare yourself, read this New York Times piece about a scientist who discovered that an AI chatbot could provide both specific instructions on how to produce a biological weapon and a plan on how to deploy such a device to maximize casualties without getting caught. Is anyone in government working on how to prevent such disastrous uses of AI?

We’ve seen instances of chatbots encouraging acts of violence, including mass shootings and suicides. Victims of a mass shooting at school in British Columbia are currently suing OpenAI and its CEO, Sam Altman, in US district court in San Francisco, claiming the company’s ChatGPT assisted the shooter. And Anthropic’s latest version of its Claude chatbot seems to have the power to hack into most software systems, jeopardizing digital security everywhere—for banks, for nuclear power plants, for you-name-it. And don’t forget the threat of AI-controlled drones and weapons.

The dilemmas presented by AI demand a paradigm shift in our politics. But we’re not that good at confronting big issues, let alone transforming paradigms. See climate change. President Joe Biden passed important legislation on that front, and look what happened to him and Kamala Harris. And Trump wiped out much of those programs and met not more than a peep of protest.

I’d rather not be doom-and-gloomy about all this. There is a giant opportunity for forward-thinking politicians and civic leaders who wish to step up and help the nation (and humankind) navigate these shoals. At some point, voters may even see the need for such leadership, though they shouldn’t wait too long. More important right now than answering the question of what to do about AI is figuring out who will decide what to do about AI.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland.corn@gmail.com.

The recent indictment of former FBI director Jim Comey is a travesty. This is the weaponization of government that hypocritical Republicans have been moaning about for years. Trump demanded the Justice Department get Comey. It tried last year with a crap case alleging he had lied years earlier during an appearance before Congress. That prosecution quickly fell apart. So now, under pressure from Trump, the DOJ has come back with a flimsier case, one that apparently was even too weak for Trump loyalist Pam Bondi to pursue when she was attorney general.

Federal prosecutors allege Comey’s posting last year of a photo showing clamshells on a beach arranged in a pattern to say “8647” was a violent threat against the president. As many have pointed out, the phrase “86”—which seems to have originated in restaurant culture in the 1930s—is routinely used as slang to mean nix or get rid of something. Like an order of food. It’s not a command to commit violence.

This indictment—announced by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI director Kash Patel—is such a transparent abuse of power that it requires no sophisticated legal analysis. What’s almost surprising is the ease with which these guys can say with a straight face that Comey was threatening to inflict bodily harm on Trump. But they have no problem doing so. Take a look:

The absurdity of this case is colossal. But the ludicrousness illustrates a serious point. Essential for an authoritarian regime are people who’ll say anything, no matter how false or ridiculous, to keep their positions of power and influence. You must have toadies willing to promote and embrace the most baseless propaganda and disinformation to serve Dear Leader and his agenda. If Blanche and Patel go along with this canard, what won’t they do?

There’s a good chance this case will be thrown out or collapse. But its ultimate significance is that it clearly demonstrates that Trump has gained complete autocratic power over the Justice Department by installing lackeys who will blatantly lie and openly pervert justice to pursue his enemies and satisfy his lust for vengeance. It’s a sign of tyranny.

By the way, remember what Trump posted about the six Democratic House and Senate members who recorded a video informing servicemembers they have the right to refuse illegal orders?  

Despite Trump’s plummeting poll numbers, his cult remains very cultish. Ed Gallrein, a Kentucky farmer who, with Trump’s endorsement, is challenging Rep. Thomas Massie in the May 19 GOP primary, felt compelled to praise the vain president in an especially silly manner. He declared, “[Trump] looks 20 years younger in person. I do know not what’s going on with those cameras, but the president I saw was a spring chicken.”

If Gallrein really thinks this, no one should source poultry from his farm.

One sign of cultism is defending the indefensible, which congressional Republicans had to do this week regarding the Comey indictment. As did Rep. Mark Alford (R-Mo.) in an exchange with CNN’s Brianna Keilar:

Alford: James Comey is a very intelligent man. I would assume he knows what the term '86' means. I was a waiter for some time. When you 86 an order, you kill the order. When you 8645 [sic], that is tantamount to saying 'killing the president of the United States.” He should’ve known that.

Keilar: When you 86 an order, you get rid of the order, but you're not killing the food.

Alford: It's the same principle.

It’s not the same principle. The MAGA embrace of this indictment is more proof there’s no abuse of power that Trump’s base will not accept and celebrate.

In a highly cynical move, Melania Trump exploited the violent episode at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner to demand Jimmy Kimmel be fired for a joke he made days before the event. On his ABC late-night show, Kimmel, pretending he was at the dinner and roasting Donald Trump, said, “Of course, our first lady, Melania, is here.” He called her “so beautiful” and, as if he were addressing her, added, “Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow.” It was a crack aimed at Trump’s age and health.

But after a gunman’s failed attack at the dinner, both Trumps complained the joke was beyond the pale and warranted cancellation of Kimmel. And the FCC announced it would conduct an early review of ABC’s broadcasting licenses—a move that FCC Chair Brendan Carr insisted was not connected to the Kimmel hullabaloo.

As part of Team Melania’s crusade against Kimmel, Marc Beckman, an advertising executive and adviser to Melania, expressed his outrage on Newsmax:

Kimmel needs to go. It's time that ABC stands up and terminates his employment. And this isn't a freedom of speech issue. The issue is purely commercial in nature. Why does ABC and the advertisers want to stand behind Kimmel when over and over again, for such a long time now, he spews this hateful rhetoric, this political divisiveness? It’s clear that his intent is not to entertain. He’s not funny. He’s not a comedian. He enters the homes of Americans every single night, 50 percent of them don't agree with his perspective, but yet ABC stands behind him.

It’s hard to take Beckman seriously when he works for the wife of a man who spews hateful rhetoric 24/7. And since when do first ladies know better what’s in the commercial interest of a major conglomerate? Any advice from Melania’s camp related to media audiences ought to be discounted. Her recent documentary cost Amazon $75 million; it grossed $16.6 million.

After the frightening episode at the WHCA dinner—and everyone there was lucky the gunman was not a suicide bomber—the predictable happened. Trump’s lieutenants blamed the anti-Trump rhetoric of Democrats and liberals for this failed attack. Blanche got into the act early. At a White House briefing, he chastised the journalists present:

Many people in this room…are just as guilty…When you have reporters and you have media being overly critical and calling the president horrible names for no reasons, without evidence, without proof, it shouldn’t surprise us that this type of [violence] takes place.

Kari Lake, the failed Arizona candidate who still insists that not one but two elections were stolen from her and who, as senior adviser for the US Agency for Global Media, has been trying to destroy Voice of America, expressed the same sentiment, blaming the media for the attack:

The people in the media, the mainstream media, really bear the brunt of the responsibility here. They’ve been reckless. They’ve been dangerous in the things that they’ve been saying. And they’ve been trying to normalize assassination….The media has been so nasty toward President Trump for the past 10 or 11 years. They're just trying to put in the hearts and minds of Americans that he's a bad guy when actually he's the most patriotic, loving American we have on the planet.

Blanche and Lake work for a fellow who has on several occasions called for a critic or foe to be executed (see above). Trump routinely demonizes his political opponents as radical lunatics and enemies of the United States bent on destroying the nation. It takes a lot of gall for any Trump devotee to complain about someone else’s harsh rhetoric. But Blanche, Lake, Beckman, and other Trumpers live in an ocean of gall.

The judges know that at this point they should no longer be surprised or shocked by the brazen hypocrisy of Trump’s minions. They do remain puzzled as to whether Blanche, Lake, and Trump’s other flunkies actually believe their bullshit or are just spouting it to preserve their standing within Trump world.

Despite the best efforts of Trump’s high-profile handmaids, they finished behind an unusual winner: the nameless lawyer(s) who wrote a motion submitted by Blanche, R. Trent McCotter, the principal associate deputy attorny general, and Stanley Woodward Jr., the associate attorney general, in the lawsuit in which the National Trust for Historic Preservation is seeking to halt the construction of Trump’s big bad ballroom at the White House. On Monday, the Justice Department filed a submission in federal court that read like a Trump social media post:

“The National Trust for Historic Preservation” is a beautiful name, but even their name is FAKE because when they add the words “in the United States” to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, it makes it sound like a Governmental Agency, which it is not….They are very bad for our Country. They stop many projects that are worthy, and hurt many others. In this case, they are trying to stop one that is vital to our National Security, and the Safety of all Presidents of the United States….They were asked by the United States Military not to bring this suit because of the Top Secret nature of the important facility being built….But this did not deter them because they suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome, commonly referred to as TDS.

It goes on like this for eight pages.

In the filing, the Justice Department argues that the incident at the WHCA dinner demonstrated why Trump’s mega-ballroom is necessary. But it’s highly unlikely such a ballroom will host events organized by outside groups, such as the WHCA or other organizations that put on galas, lunches, and dinners attended by a president. (Will the ballroom be available for rent?)

Legal arguments aside, the Trumpish mispunctuation and antagonistic bravado in the filing shows that the Trump gang cannot separate governance from trolling. (Or is it the other way around?) No doubt, the DOJ worker bees who cooked up this motion won kudos from the bosses. They also won this week’s trophy.

Many readers appreciated my attempt to shift attention from last week’s WHCA dinner to the obscene dinner Paramount CEO David Ellison held for Donald Trump to—gag!—celebrate the First Amendment. Lee Hambich wrote:

Thanks for focusing on this and also for laying out all that is wrong having an insurrectionist on the dais. Please continue to call out the hypocrisy we're living with and the nightmare so many citizens are experiencing. Hopefully more of your fellow journalists will join in.

Responding to the issue that noted the ridiculousness of Joe diGenova being granted a Justice Department position to oversee the so-called “grand conspiracy” case, Agnes Uhls wrote:

Doesn’t it seem ridiculous to start these ridiculous investigations, as Democrats can do the same? These discredited lawsuits and lawyers are playing with fire, as charges against them may very well stick.

In the normal world, that logic would hold. If Trump officials file bullshit cases against his enemies, Republicans might expect the Democrats to do the same, should they win back the White House. Yet there are at least two reasons why Republicans may not be worrying about this. First, Democrats are not cult members who have to meet the needs and demands of a pathological narcissist. Second, Trump can be expected to pardon anyone who served in his administration who might face such accountability once he leaves the White House. His henchmen and henchwomen will be protected.    

Mary Berg had two words for the diGenova appointment: “Mind-numbing corruption.”

Lynn Biddle sent in a bunch of questions:

Isn't there any law against meddling in elections through lies? In doing it in conjunction with foreign nationals?  Shouldn’t there be? Who votes to confirm diGenova? 

DiGenova did not need to be confirmed by the Senate. He was brought on by Blanche, presumably with Trump’s happy support. And there are no laws against lying about an election. There are various fraud statues and such. But people are free to lie about the tallies, though they generally can’t resort to subterfuge to overturn the results, which is what Trump and his allies, like diGenova, tried to do.

Nancy Porter noted that during the recent (and highly enjoyable) Zoom get-together for Our Land premium subscribers, I pointed out that there were 17 swing House districts that deserve the notice of those Americans looking to take action related to the 2026 midterms. She wrote:

When I looked it up, I found this NBC News story that lists 35 races. Which of these in your infinite wisdom should be our primary focus? Perhaps you could list them in your next bulletin so we can spread the word. If you don’t have time to consider this, no problem. I know you have bigger fish to fry.

There may be no bigger fish this year than the fight for control of the House. My favorite list of swing congressional districts is maintained by the Cook Political Report. You can find it here. As you can see, there are now only 16 toss-up seats, of which 13 are held by Republicans. Additionally, there are 14 seats that lean Democratic (of which 11 are held by Democrats), and two that lean Republican (one of which is now filled by a Democrat). These numbers tell you that the Democrats are in the much better position at the moment. One of the best ways to try to shape American politics this year is to support a candidate in these tight contests. Any one of them could determine who controls the House.

“Moxie, you look great now. Why did you shake in terror when I brought you to the groomer?”
“I didn’t look great before?”
“Of course. But with this cut, you’ll feel cooler. There’s no reason to get so scared.”
“When was the last time you had a stranger go over every inch of your body with a sharp object? And I do mean every inch.”
“Good point. But you sure look—”
“Just get me out of here.”