Labour-replacing AI will shift the relative importance of human v non-human factors of production, which reduces the incentives for society to care about humans while making existing powers more effective and entrenched.
And yet, … society appears to be caring more about humans.
And yet, … existing powers (specifically the state) seem even less effective and entrenched. Open Borders policies are clearly an act of desperation … while these policies appear to have been broadly rejected by the electorate. The state only opened the borders because of its crumbling power base.
How is the contradiction resolved? How can technology seemingly reduce the relative importance of human v non human factors of production, while we can observe a frantic effort to outbid others in the global human auction?
Global fertility collapse is greatly increasing the incentive for society to care about humans while at the same time making existing powers less effective and entrenched. Pursuing Open Borders policies demonstrates how desperate states are to avoid extinction: This is now an existential struggle. Overlooking the welfare of one’s own population by swamping communities with immigrants is the last line of defense- it is the least bad option before you close up shop. It is a clear act of desperation and has only been tried because of the profound fertility crisis that is underway. Fertility collapse will only escalate during the 21st Century and could become even more severe as AGI approaches. At some point, a full Demographic Arms Race might begin.
States are highly motivated “to care” about humans or at least protect their self-interests because state power traditionally has manifested in the control of bricks and mortar reality and with it government services such as education and health care. Fertility collapse (and alternative learning technology) is creating large reductions in bricks and mortar school demand and with it the power of the deep state.
The Darwinian struggle for national survival induced by extremely low total fertility rates then creates a paradoxical result in which the value of humans greatly increases and at the same time greatly reduces entrenched state power.
I discussed your alleged experience extensively with LLMs. One of the elements that was highlighted by them was the extremely serious nature of these accusations. Apparently, this alleged incident (i.e., the mix-up of the x-ray) is called a never event in hospital terminology. This means it should NEVER happen. There can be very severe legal implications when such events do occur and there is a whole set of responses that the hospital must follow to stay in regulatory compliance. If the hospital does not follow these legally mandated protocols, then they can be de-accredited. I am unsure whether you were fully aware of these implications when you wrote your post.
I think it would be best for me not to comment further on the incident without legal representation.
I then went on to a lengthy discussion of things that might have been helpful for you to have known during your experience. One of the more surprising things that I learned was how rapidly the diagnosis converged on pneumothorax. There are surprisingly few possible diagnoses that fit the symptoms you gave aside from pneumothorax. Importantly, once learning of the diagnosis medical guidance would have been not to lie flat in a bed or stretcher as that can further compromise respiratory functioning with pneumothorax.
What was also quite interesting was how helpful a $10 pulse oximeter would have been—when you were at home and even when you were at the hospital when they disconnected your suction you would have been able to monitor your condition independently. Once they removed suctioning your oxy sat would have monotonically declined which would have been somewhat terrifying, but you would then have been aware of your health status; as it was you did not even know the danger you were in. It is absurd for people not to have a working $10 pulse oximeter at home in their medical emergency kit.
It is notable that LLMs maintain a time stamped record of any chats that you have with them. So if you had been chatting with the LLM at 7 AM when they said you were in the X-ray room, you would have a time stamped alibi to prove otherwise. The LLM noted that regulations require staff to document and verify patient safety objections before proceeding. Chatting to an LLM while you were in hospital would then have been extremely useful—you would have been given many productive suggestions.
I learned quite a bit from the medical report you provided and how one might go about avoiding some of the problems that you faced. The LLMs provided very powerful suggestions of how one could assert one’s rights without being over-reactive—that is how one could be a better patient. It might have been even more powerful if you had posted your comments in real time and others could have offered you ideas.