People are endlessly worried that AI will take jobs away from people.

I don’t agree that jobs (librarians or others) are inherently good things. If I could do without a job, I would.

What’s inherently good is the *income* we get from jobs. The ability to get the things we need and want to thrive in life.

So it doesn’t matter to me whether librarian or other jobs are automated. But there are two significant conditions:

1. The job still gets done at the same or better level than it was getting done before.

2. People who were doing the job don’t suddenly find themselves without any income.

(And maybe 3. we can still find meaningful things for us to do).

Which means that, assuming effective AI, we need to seriously reconsider how we distribute income in our society (and globally!).

Automation should make us – all of us – rich, not poor.

People may argue “there are meaningful relationships between humans that happen in many areas of scholarship and academia and learning,” i.e., in academic jobs.

I do not deny the meaningful relationships developed in many areas of academia and learning.

I’m just thinking how much better the relationships we could have would be if they weren’t subjected to the capitalist logic of jobs and salaries.

Eliminating jobs doesn’t mean eliminating knowledge, learning and social interaction. If anything, it opens large spaces for it.

That’s why I favour automation, provided we don’t lose our incomes.