"Everyone has a plan til' they get punched in the face." - Mike Tyson

Sadly, I agree, that's where this is all headed.

> imagine a few hundred million people getting angry within one election cycle

This isn't hard to imagine? We'll elect someone, they will put in place new policies. Maybe they will help, maybe they won't.

Nice thing about real democracies, you don't actually need pitchforks.

During the economic transformation in the former Soviet Bloc, entire industries disappeared, and pitchforks weren't grabbed. I saw it myself, growing up in a heavy industry city that quickly turned into a rust belt city.

IDK why so many people romanticize pauper riots and try to wish them into existence. In practice, as long as people don't outright starve, they don't become violent just over losing their jobs.

All the post-1989 wars east of the former Iron Curtain were triggered by nationalism. Not a single one by a class conflict.

Ironically, by predicting the most chaotic outcome you're falling for the narrative that AI will transform the economy overnight, which is exactly what AI companies' marketing divisions want you to believe.

>More than 90 percent of executives report no effect of AI use on employment over the past three years, and 89 percent report no impact on labor productivity. Among the minority that do report effects, the results tilt slightly positive for productivity, with an estimated average boost of 0.29 percent. However, executives anticipate much larger effects going forward. They forecast that over the next three years, AI will increase labor productivity by 1.4 percent on average while reducing employment by 0.7 percent, implying a net output gain of roughly 0.8 percent. About two-thirds of the anticipated workforce reduction is expected to come from reduced hiring.

https://www.nber.org/digest/202605/global-evidence-business-...

A 1-2% increase in labor productivity year over year is typical for a mature economy in the absence of a new transformational technology. The 0.7% reduction in workforce is an optimistic prediction by a small minority of executives. Even if that happened across all industries (unlikely), an increase in unemployment from 4.1% to 4.8% over 3 years is hardly pitchfork territory.

Given the current evidence, I find it hard to imagine a realistic scenario where "a few hundred million people get angry within one election cycle". That might change if we see economy-wide 10% productivity gains sustained over a decade, but I'm not holding my breath.

China’s surveillance state seems very successful at managing population emotions.

I think he's literally conceding your point by writing this essay. That there will be massive upheaval and yes maybe pitchforks if we don't get ahead of the problems.

What unemployment?? The unemployment rate right now is by all reasonable standards very low. Do you have any reason to believe unemployment will suddenly skyrocket? As a result of what factors? I hate to say it, but your analysis here seems based on vibes and not much else.