It turns out that creating dystopias is rather easy. A smidgen of uncertainty, a dash of job loss, and a heaping of hopelessness topped with a dose of dehumanization will churn out dystopias quite nicely. Season to taste. However, getting people to accept that recipe without revolt is another thing entirely. As most people get flashes of the future pitched by influencers and tech bros, they immediately find it abhorrent.
Whenever people discuss utopias or dystopias, they thrust us right into the middle of them, but you find fewer people who talk about the transition period before these conditions arrive. Whether the result is a utopia or a dystopia, both conditions have what I call a dystopian lag, which I’ve referred to before as the “sucks to be you gap”. This article attempts to discuss this transition period.
Note: This post was written in January of 2025 as a follow-up to my Techno Communism post. I peeled this content off because it would have made the post too long. Not exactly sure why it took me so long to get back to this, I always meant to revisit, especially with all of the technoutopian narratives still swirling around.
Table of Contents:
Dystopian Lag
In my previous post, I called out a condition I referred to as the “Sucks To Be You” Gap. Not my greatest naming triumph. I think “dystopian lag” better sums up the condition. The dystopian lag is the period that exists before a utopia or dystopia is fully realized. The difference is that with a dystopia, things actually get worse. The period is of indeterminate length but could realistically be in years or even decades.
The example I gave was that unemployment was likely to reach something like 90% all at once. Early people displaced by automation would be the most harmed since they would be unable to support themselves and their families, and have no real recourse for their situation. Death and despair would result. This is an example of falling into the dystopian lag.
I even mentioned it wasn’t p(doom), it was p(shit). Which, even though it looks AI-generated with the form of “it’s not ‘x,’ it’s ‘y’”, I can assure you that came completely from my skull. I refuse to rewrite my jokes simply because of the patterns created by regurgitating slop machines.
Utopia Perspective
Whether the concept of AI taking everyone’s job is a utopia or a dystopia largely depends on your perspective. Technoutopians claim that AI taking everyone’s job will be one of the best things that’s ever happened to humanity, which is what you’d expect from people who sit around making stuff up all day. For everyone else who isn’t living in a delusional pipe dream, this kinda sucks. What happens when real systems arrive that displace large numbers of workers in one fell swoop? They have no real answers, other than AI will be so awesome that we’ll figure it out.
I believe that what people conceptualize as a utopia may not be possible. However, I do believe that any number of dystopias is certainly possible. We are always left with the fact that one person’s utopia is another person’s dystopia. Even if it could be conceptually boiled down to a single child, as in the case of Ursula K. LeGuin’s excellent short story The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas.
Utopian talking points have evolved from thought experiments into narratives that push a selfish agenda. For example, when Elon Musk talks about robots making everybody rich, he actually doesn’t give a shit about making anyone rich other than himself. Not to mention, if everyone is rich by today’s standards, then everyone is poor by the future’s.
If everyone is rich by today’s standards, then everyone is poor by the future’s.
I’ve previously written that the economic and abundance arguments these people make don’t make sense. You can read those articles here and here.
This is an odd irony, since the point of a utopia is to benefit everyone, yet the people pushing it only care about themselves. Now, is it possible that something that benefits them also benefits us? Sure. But what I’m talking about is the motivation and manipulation behind the narrative.
We need to acknowledge that any attempt at a utopia involves trade-offs, making it not a utopia at all. For example, when Ray Kurzweil talks about brain-computer interfaces that allow us to store our memories in the cloud, he doesn’t acknowledge the massive potential for negative cognitive impacts, much less the reality of manipulation that would manifest. Ultimately, humans becoming nothing but machines isn’t a problem for him, but it’s a massive problem for everyone else. Kurzweil’s utopia is my dystopia.
All of this brings up another question. Assuming that something that resembles a utopia is attainable, is it sustainable? However, the answer to this question probably necessitates a post of its own.
Human Adjustment Problem
There’s a misconception that artificial general intelligence (AGI) or a fast takeoff scenario is necessary for mass unemployment. This isn’t the case. It’s possible for a less capable system to achieve performance sufficient to displace workers. CEOs are currently foaming at the mouth, hoping generative AI can be that technology.
People don’t evolve or adjust at the rate of a software update. We can’t expect to go from a life of purpose to having none, with no prospects, in a short period of time, without expecting severe backlash. However, if companies get their way, this is exactly what will happen.
There are even companies like Mercor that are working to turn every job into low-cost gig work by breaking jobs up into a collection of tasks. Everything gets devalued, so much that it’s causing homelessness. This devaluation is coming even before the big AI shift. The consequences of these activities aren’t given any attention because they assume it isn’t their problem. But it is their problem because it’s society’s problem.
Hannah Arendt described this condition in 1958.
“What we are confronted with is the prospect of a society of laborers without labor, that is, without the only activity left to them. Surely, nothing could be worse.” -Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition
If the rapid onset of AI technology into the workforce is realized with widespread human displacement, this will result in massive upheaval and violence. As a matter of fact, actual displacement isn’t necessary for the violence to occur. The thought of this displacement and what it means is enough. I wrote this article long before the attacks on Sam Altman. The reality is, almost every path along this road leads to violence.
The potential for upheaval and violence isn’t lost on tech billionaires as they build their doomsday bunkers.
Some of the proposed solutions to this problem are laughable at best and completely stupid at worst. For example, the thought that people could find meaning while being handed less than a living wage, but given video games to play instead. I’ve written previously about why this techno-communism won’t work out the way people assume, and even if it does, many will find themselves caught up in the dystopian lag.
But video games? Seriously? All it takes is a modicum of reflection to realize how silly this suggestion is. The thought that the meaning of life can be found in high scores is ridiculous. Video games provide activity, they don’t provide meaning, and that’s a pretty monumental difference. I’ve conquered many video games in my life, and this completion is certainly satisfying, but it’s a far cry from fulfilling. And, it’s only a momentary satisfaction at that.
The belief that video games will fill the void at the center of human existence left by the loss of human purpose demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature and of humanity as a whole.
Despite this person’s ability to be completely fooled by every single press release, they do make a point. We do need a structure for meaning that isn’t based on traditional work. This is hardly a new perspective. People have held it for decades.
Technology and Meaning
Is it possible for technology to simulate some form of meaning? I doubt it. Meaning is something we create for ourselves. Often, this meaning involves a social component. Meaning is something deep, and technology is shallow. Then again, technology is making us more shallow creatures, so who knows. Regardless, it will take a lot more than video games.
Even with advanced technology and direct integration into the human brain to create a simulation indistinguishable from reality, this won’t necessarily create meaning. Despite being good at what it does, this technology would merely be a temporary distraction, allowing us to fool ourselves into living like couch potatoes. For technoutopians, The Matrix is viewed as a utopia because everyone can play Neo.
The Matrix is viewed as a utopia because everyone can play Neo.
However, there is a problem. Anyone alive today would ultimately reject this because they know it’s an illusion. After the novelty wears off, it begins to feel even more fake. This is similar to the way that it’s not fun to play all video games in god mode. Maybe some future human blank slate would accept this condition as a new reality, but that’s not us.
But all this is irrelevant because we don’t have this technology today, and we don’t know how to build it. The answer from the AI bros is that AI will be so smart that it will figure it out. But the larger problem is that all current efforts are being devoted to technology that displaces humans from the workforce. Nobody is expending any real effort to develop the technology for what comes next.
This means that there will be a gap of indeterminate length. Even assuming this technology would be an acceptable replacement, which is a massive assumption, the fact that there’s a gap at all guarantees there will be a backlash. Combine this with the fact that deep, human-integrated simulation technology is harder to create than many workforce automation solutions, as well as being less lucrative because, well, if people don’t have the money to buy and continue paying for your solution, it’s not worth building, and we have a massive problem.
The AI Adjustment Bureau
Addressing these challenges may require creating something like an AI Adjustment Bureau, since the government will want to appear to be addressing these issues. This organization may evaluate workforce levels at certain companies based on income until a proper tax/employment level is reached. This would allow a more gradual transition over time. Of course, this approach also makes massive assumptions.
We all know how much companies love paying taxes. Raising taxes may cause companies to relocate to more tax-friendly locations. Governments will have to get tough. Also, companies would need to buy into the bureau’s recommendations.
On a side note, it is interesting to consider what shifts in priorities would look like if the pool of money available to governments were reduced. What government services would be impacted or cut completely? How would this affect things like garbage collection, building upkeep, and a whole host of other issues? These shifts may result in making the real world resemble our vision of dystopian landscapes through urban decay. After all, servers don’t need office space, and every office can’t be transformed into a data center.
The AI Adjustment Bureau would be tasked with finding solutions to stave off upheaval and violence, which is almost universally an impossible task given the circumstances, but it’s possible. So, what are some options?
One method a government may try is authoritarianism. Sure, this is one way to go, but it’s most likely to provoke violence rather than stave it off. With fear and control, authoritarianism may be able to keep violence to a minimum. However, although governments may be tempted to use Orwell’s techniques, their mileage would be better with Huxley’s.
Drugs, Distraction, and Division
There’s no one method for addressing the issues here. Some would say, “Just give people money and let them do what they want.” But even if you give people more than enough money, the hedonic treadmill would kick in, creating discontent and further enflaming tensions. We can see this today as some of the most comfortable people in the world are the most discontent.
You’d certainly need to give people enough money to survive. That’s a given because no matter what you do otherwise, there’d still be problems. But money won’t solve the issues here. I’m going to outline something that could work despite being wholly dystopian. This approach involves a combination of drugs, division, and distraction.
Any one of these on its own wouldn’t be enough, but the combination of all three could be enough to make a major dent. Let’s call it the Triforce of Dystopia.
Aldous Huxley opined on the concept of consent in these environments and getting people to love their servitude. And people loving their servitude is what would be necessary in this situation.
One thing I think Huxley misses concerns the removal of hope. We are taught that if you remove hope, then all is lost, but that’s not the case in reality. Hope is never really lost. Once you condition people to a sense of inevitability, they seek hope elsewhere. Providing a diverse landscape of other comforts for people to take refuge in not only aligns with the diversity of people but may result in broken people who do actually love their servitude.
Drugs
Drugs will play a key role in the path forward, purely because the technology of the near and mid-term isn’t good enough. What I mean by this is that we don’t and won’t have advanced technology to directly connect our brains to systems to create the imperceptible experiences that technoutopians dream of. This tech may never be built because once workers are displaced and can’t afford both the technology and medical procedure for implantation, there’s no financial incentive for people to build it. Drugs, on the other hand, are cheaper.
You might think I’m talking about something like Soma from Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, but I’m not. Soma was an impossible drug, something Huxley acknowledges in his reflection on the drug in Brave New World Revisited.
Soma was not only a vision-producer and a tranquilizer, it was also (and no doubt impossibly) a stimulant of the mind and body, a creator of active euphoria as well as of the negative happiness that follows the release from anxiety and tension. -Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited
For Brave New World, Soma had to perform so much of the heavy lifting, but a drug of the future wouldn’t need to perform the same. Despite his critiques of technology and mass distraction, Huxley couldn’t have envisioned the amount of stimulation that happens to a typical teenager these days. It would no doubt terrify him. So, there is no need for this future drug to have all of the properties of Soma.
EVE-EE
Introducing EVE-EE! Enhanced Virtual Experiences for Emersion and Escape. The purpose of the drug would be to connect and immerse people in the digital experience. To chemically connect the user to a VR environment, further enhancing the experience. This would negate the need for surgery or advanced technology. Although temporary, the usage of this drug, combined with high-quality VR, would provide temporary escapism.
In a way, this drug more closely resembles the drug Can-D from Philip K. Dick’s The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch. Can-D was a type of hallucinogenic drug that was used with something called a layout. These layouts were small model houses that Can-D users were transported into. VR provides a much more adaptable and modern upgrade of the layout.
Distraction
The technology developed over the past couple of decades, combined with algorithmic manipulation, has primed us for distraction. Many people can no longer perform activities that were easy 30 years ago. This obvious bug would become a feature for future governments and organizations looking to obliterate core features of our humanity while stopping a full-scale revolution.
Much like the Coliseum provided a distraction for everyday Romans, we’d have an assortment of digital distractions to take our minds off how bad our reality is, bombarding us with stimuli for indirect compliance.
The only caveat here is that distraction costs money. To quote the great American philosopher Stephen Pearcy, “Nobody rides for free.” This means that people without means would have to give up the last shred of dignity to pay for these distractions. What this payment for indignities means isn’t clear yet. Maybe they agree to be intrusively monitored for data collection, or worse, agree to have their whole family monitored, including their children.
Division
No matter how far society progresses, people still need people to hate. An other to fight against. We’ve become experts at dividing ourselves and creating factions. In this transitional period, this public-private partnership wouldn’t have to do much except provide occasional stoking of this division.
When I was young, I thought that as organized religions faded into the past, reason would prevail, and the world would be a better place. Oh, the naivety of youth. Instead, people have turned everything into a religion. Politics, vaccines, Bryan Johnson, e/acc, you name it, it’s a religion. Even the belief in AI is a religion now.
No matter what the scenario, we’ll find ways to create factions and others to hate. The usefulness of which was not lost on Orwell.
The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. -George Orwell, 1984
A government may allow these divisions to fester because we only have so much bandwidth for being mad at things. If we are busy being mad at “the others”, then we have less bandwidth for anger at government officials or companies that we don’t like.
One of the unfortunate side effects of declining literacy is the loss of empathy. Without empathy, we become far more tribal and far more likely to harbor hatred toward others.
Outliers
Despite this attempt at control and getting people to love their servitude, there will still be outliers. People who refuse to accept the path that lies before them. These people would cause trouble for governments and business leaders, whom they see as creating the problems.
These outliers would no doubt use violence as part of their arsenal of techniques, but being outliers means that this violence wouldn’t be widespread and would be more targeted. This doesn’t mean that they couldn’t do massive amounts of damage. It just means that there would be fewer people doing it. It may lead government leaders to assume they can more easily control them. Which would be a mistake.
Conclusion
Although I don’t think LLMs will lead to AGI and probably won’t lead to mass unemployment, I don’t think it’s impossible either. We’ve seen how companies are more than happy to replace humans with incredibly shitty automation solutions, making perfection unnecessary. They’d automate away everyone if they could. So, although LLMs may not be the solution, what we see is a dry run for what it will look like.
The conversation about the future often focuses on humans being wiped out by AI or the fact that LLMs are a silly technology. Nobody is focused on preparing for what comes next, and what comes next is the most important thing for those of us alive today.