Yeoman Artisans

Jefferson expected a country of “yeoman farmers” who would have self-sufficiency by day and discuss politics by night. Never happened. He certainly was not much interested for himself, at least if slaves were not available to do the work .

For a while we did have artisan farmers, who would grow some of their own food and sell specialized items for the rest. Soon enough, artisans stopped growing stuff altogether. Then the idea was suburban nuclear families, working for a large company to gain currency. Fuzzy effect of the ongoing industrial revolution on society, as workers were turned into machines. No politics by night, just entertainment .

Now I wonder. Is AI and automation the end of that paradigm as well? More and more we seem to become a nation of “yeoman artisans” bartering our own specialties for livelihood. Not quite worked out yet, but I wonder what work and life may become in the next decade .

Not Jeffersonian. And probably far from Utopian. But the real point is – nobody knows. And hardly anyone is even sure what they would like .

I enjoyed being an artisan computer professional. Artisan pride fit me well. But the other thing I wonder is if there will remain varied niches for varied folks to fit into .

Taxing Machines

Any society seems to require government, complex societies more so than simple ones. Except under true communism (where the government/people own everything) taxes must be raised to pay for it .

Taxes over the last tens of thousands of years have taken many forms, and involved almost anything imaginable. Fees, income, wealth, property, sales, ethnicity and on and on. But as the industrial revolution morphs into the AI/automation revolution, perhaps machines and processes should themselves provide revenue .

This is heresy to classic economists. More production always enriches society, they say, and should be encouraged. Lately, that may not be true. A marginal gain in output of widgets entirely done by machine instead of traditional labor may actually harm the society more than it helps .

How to directly tax machines? probably with heavy fees and taxes on the input resources they use – electricity, air, water. Large land taxes on the property they occupy. Major levies on associated nuisances like noise pollution or environmental degradation. And, of course, the equivalent of tariffs to equalize all this between nations and regions .

Simple? No. But presumably an AI in charge of government could make it all work .

(As long as that AI was not self-aware !)

Certified versus Experienced

Now that hiring is solely based on “merit”, it is useful to ask what, exactly, signifies “merit”. In a lot of cases that is otherwise described as nepotism, social class, or presentation. Proof that one is a member of the existing tribe. But let’s pretend “merit” means how well one can do the job required.

Throughout history, the main measure – outside of actual performance once hired – has been experience. What someone has done and how well they have done it is almost always the main traditional criteria of “merit”, even if the skill is simply being flexible enough to learn new skills, or showing up on time. The normal route for all that until very recently was apprenticeship .

Today, increasingly specialized experience can be hard to come by, so learning with eventual “certification” became common. It worked a little. But most trades and professions want to be in a guild – which turned out to be well served by erecting barriers to entry involving more and more numerous and baroque certificates.

Certification often fails miserably in telling how meritorious a job candidate is, but it certainly thins down the stream of job seekers. And it’s self-serving since the last employee in wants new applicants to “at least go through what they did” .

The only folks who love all this are the lawyers. And the teachers. For the most part, newbies entering good professions are now facing that tried and true nepotism, social class, and presentation – plastered over with certification .

Lean, Mean, Government

It’s been all the rage for a while for organizations to claim they want to be “lean and mean”. Such a desire will apparently yield greater efficiency, keep costs down, lower prices. What could possibly be wrong with that ?

Not long ago, however, people actually prized other things. They ridiculed those who “knew the price of everything and the value of nothing”. Even today the wealthy expect services far beyond a “wham bam thank you ma’am” approach. We have begun to regret the loss to society as civility has been submerged by nastiness .

More than that, whatever the benefits to a private economic organization, such an approach has never worked socially. “Lean and mean” families generally fall apart or produce monsters. Lean and mean social organizations fail miserably .

So it is with government. As rich technocrats take over and seek to “streamline” everything, they fail to realize that the primary goal of government, as in families and social organizations, is not to produce a product at lowest cost, but to provide a service that keeps a culture healthy, whatever the expense.

Like many slogans, “lean and mean” is a shallow fad of limited utility once the shock wears off and the actual results are evaluated. Even most successful organizations learn they must find ways to happily engage as a collaborative tribal unit. But too often, a lot of things are wrecked before that happens. In a government, that is a massive, and perhaps fatal, tragedy .

Art Owner

As a would-be visual artist, I was always annoyed that once a painting was sold nothing remained to the creator. Music and film had “residuals”, books had copyrights. But once a painting was sold (or traded for a meal) the new owner had any right to its future earnings – even if it sold next year for millions of dollars .

Digital copying has evened that out, of course. Very little remains to most originators. Truthfully, even at its peak, most of the people helping the prime creator – backup musicians, studio assistance, even gallery owners – never reaped a future windfall .

Now the art market is entirely strange, where a banana taped to a wall can sell for 3 million. Some of this is simply potlatch behavior from the filthy rich “look what I can do”. Mostly, though, in certain areas – again among the wealthy – it is simply that demand is high everywhere, but supply of most tangible things is vast_ even gold and diamonds once precious. So anything in limited supply – actual painting from a known artist, Bitcoin, ancient automobiles – skyrockets in value .

Why? Mostly so those people can taunt each other with calls of “I have it and you can’t!”

Fortunately, for most artists, creation is its own reward. As, indeed, it must be .

Business Visionary

We generally admire the extraordinary individuals who through intelligence, drive, or structured vision lead their companies to heights and influence. In the old days Ford, Carnegie, Vanderbilt. In modern times, Gates, Murdoch, Musk .

They are generally saluted as less evil embodiments of human ambition – helpful to society rather than disruptive politicians like Napoleon or Hitler .

No doubt there is some truth in that. Corporations are often a force for good, producing wealth which eventually trickles down to all. A cornerstone of our affluent modern world. Almost forgotten are the days when they were labeled (with some justification) “merchants of death.”

Remember, however, that all of those leaders were human. No matter how ruthless, they were constrained to mortal existence and secondary desires. I believe that, increasingly, AI driven business will become ruthless in ways we cannot imagine, completely morally bankrupt from a social point of view .

The dangers of treating employees like machines has long been luridly documented in literature. AI goes a step further, since it cannot understand any fundamental difference between flesh and metal, nor any obligation to consciousness versus obedience .

Today’s specialized titans of industry, unfortunately, are already well down the road to AI sterility.